Joe Conte Toyota, Inc. v. Louisiana Motor Vehicle Commission’s Empirical Analysis
24 F.3d 754 · 1994
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently February 2019
8 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Relies on New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Central Hudson Gas Electric Corporation v. Public Service Commission of New York · Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Claiborne Hardware Company · Edwards v. South Carolina
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“At the outset, we must determine whether the expression is protected by the First Amendment. For commercial speech to come within that provision, it at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. Next, we ask whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial. If both inquiries yield positive, answers, we must determine whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘Due to holdbacks, incentives, and rebates, the invoice amount bears little relation to the dealer’s true cost. To the extent that the term ‘invoice’ provides any information to the consumer, it is misleading; its use can only be intended to confuse the invoice amount with the dealer’s actual costs. Plaintiff in effect concedes this when it offers to explain in its proposed ads that the term ‘invoice’ does not mean what it appears to mean.’ 24 F.3d at 757.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“misleading advertising may not. In attempting to understand the distinction, we derive additional guidance from a later commercial speech case, Peel v. Attorney Disciplinary Commission, 496 U.S. 91 , 110 S.Ct. 2281 , 110 L.Ed.2d 83 (1990). . . . . A statement is”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.