Browning v. City of Waycross’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

43 federal appellate · 14 district · 211 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 355 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We are of the opinion that the court below was right in holding that the business of erecting lightning rods under the circumstances disclosed, was within the regulating power of the state and not the subject of interstate commerce for the following reasons: (a) Because the affixing of lightning rods to houses was the carrying on of a business of a strictly local character, peculiarly within the ex-, elusive control of state authority, (b) Because, besides, such business was wholly separate from interstate commerce, involved no question of the delivery of property shipped in interstate commerce or of the right to complete an interstate commerce transaction, but concerned merely the doing of a local act after interstate commerce had completely terminated. It is true, that it was shown that the contract under which the rods were shipped bound the seller, at his own expense, to attach the rods to the houses of the persons who ordered rods, but it was not within the power of the parties by the form of their contract to convert what was exclusively a local business, subject to state control, into an interstate commerce business protected by the commerce clause. It is manifest that if the right here asserted were recognized or the power to accomplish by contract what'is here claimed, were to be upheld, all lines of demarcation between national and state authority would become obliterated, since it would necessarily follow that every kind or form of material shipped from one state ”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jell-O Co. v. Landes · Indiana Creosoting Co. v. McNutt, Governor

2. “"The court does not believe that the combined activities of IMPCO place this company in the position of operating in intrastate commerce, including the activities of the two employees who worked in the paper mill division of this company. "The contracts between DELTA and IMPCO were for the purchase of highly complex machinery used in the plastics industry. The machines were manufactured by IMPCO in New Hampshire and were sold and shipped to DELTA in Alabama. Taken alone, this is admitted by all parties to be pure interstate commerce. "As a necessary adjunct to the basic contract, IMPCO furnished experts to come into Alabama and assemble the machines, put them in operation, train DELTA employees in the operation thereof, perform warranty maintenance and repairs as well as ordinary maintenance and repairs. These activities are totally essential to the basic contract but are only incidental thereto and do not constitute intrastate commerce. It must be remembered that the machines involved here are highly sophisticated complex machines designed and intended to be used for a specific purpose and that only specially trained highly qualified experts were capable of working on them. The record discloses that there were no persons to be found in Alabama with the required expertise to perform this work. The agreement by IMPCO to perform this assembly, startup, maintenance and repair work was totally essential to the accomplishment of the interstate transaction (the sale and purchase of”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pfaudler Co. v. Westphal · 470 So. 2d 1151 - Wallace Const. Co. v. Industrial Boiler Co.

3. ““The general rule found in the foregoing authorities is well stated in 5 R. C. L., pp. 768,- 769, and 770: “ ‘The negotiation of sales of goods which are in other states, for the purpose of introducing them into the State in which the negotiation is made, is interstate commerce, and cannot be interfered with, regulated, or taxed by the State in which the negotiation was made, though there be no discrimination between such business and domestic commerce, and this rule applies to persons who engage in the business of soliciting orders by sample or otherwise for goods to be shipped from another State, such as agents of non-resident manufacturers or dealers, drummers or canvassers. * * * “ ‘It makes no difference with reference to the interstate character of a sale, made on a contract for the purchase of goods, which are to be shipped from another State, that the goods are to be consigned to the shipper or the agent to whom the order is given, and to be delivered by the agent on payment of the purchase price/ . “That some alterations are made in Michigan upon the finished garments does not change the rule. Where a part of a contract for the sale of furniture’ included installation, which consisted of uncrating* the furniture, putting it in rooms, attaching mirrors, assembling beds, dusting and polishing and removing marks and soils, this court said all these things were ‘dissociated from any attempt to connect them with or make them a part in the state of property which had not a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dunston v. City of Norfolk