Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 242 F.3d 198 - TFWS, Inc. v. Schaefer

TFWS, Inc. v. Schaefer’s Empirical Analysis

242 F.3d 198 · 2001

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
2
states following
August 2020
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably Antrican v. Odom (2002), TFWS, Inc. v. Franchot (2009)

14 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions

250200120102020decided

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

Relies on Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Edelman v. Jordan · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida · Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States

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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “whether, and to what extent, the regulatory scheme serves its stated purpose in promoting temperance.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. US Airways, Inc. v. O'Donnell · Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Maleng
  2. “[t]he post-and-hold system is a classic hybrid restraint: the State requires wholesalers to set prices and stick to them, but it does not review those privately set prices for reasonableness; the wholesalers are thus granted a significant degree of private regulatory power.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
    e.g. TFWS, Inc. v. Franchot · Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Maleng
  3. “a state must demonstrate that its liquor regulatory policies directly serve the interests it proffers under the Twenty-first Amendment.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. TFWS, Inc. v. Franchot · Mt. Hood Beverage Co. v. Constellation Brands, Inc.

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.