Epstein v. Lordi’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
2 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently November 2001
2 district · 8 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 19 U.S.C. § 1309 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 26 U.S.C. § 5301 · 27 U.S.C. § 201 (Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act of 1988) · 27 U.S.C. § 203 (Federal Alcohol Administration Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281
Relies on Ex parte Poresky · Samuel Bailey v. Joe T. Patterson · Southern Pac Co v. State of Arizona Sullivan · Huron Portland Cement Company v. City of Detroit Michigan · Phillips 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Here, the national interest is more than the general desirability of freely flowing goods. In the case of liquor sold in bond for shipment and use as ships’stores or at foreign destinations, Congress has spelled out a specific interest by enacting the aforementioned complement of tariff, internal revenue and customs statutes and regulations. It is the expression of congressional policy embodied therein which concretely indicates the national policy involved. (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[New Jersey] also has the power to prohibit or to condition in the most discriminatory fashion the importation into its territory of all intoxicants “for delivery or use” within New Jersey, as that phrase is employed in the Twenty-first Amendment (citing cases). Where, however, the liquor is not brought into the State for “delivery or use therein”, regulation cannot be predicated upon the Amendment. 261 F.Supp. at 932 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * [Wjhen foreign commerce is involved the national interest is even more clearly paramount [than when interstate commerce is involved]. Federal power over such commerce is closely allied to its exclusive authority in foreign relations and it is buttressed by the Export-Import Clause which prohibits State imposts or duties levied without Congressional consent.””
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.