State v. Knoefler’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 14 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is now settled that states have power to legislate against what are found to be injurious practices in their internal commercial and business affairs as long as their laws do not run afoul of some specific federal constitutional prohibition or some valid federal law. In determining the constitutionality of statutes regulating commercial affairs under the Equal Protection Clause, courts have required only a rational relationship between the classification and the purpose of the statute. Our court has followed this approach in reviewing equal protection challenges to such statutes. . . . “In reviewing the relationship between the commercial classification and the purpose of the statute, it is not necessary that the purpose of the statute be readily ascertainable upon its face. In United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 , 58 S.Ct. 778 , 82 L.Ed. 1234 (1938), the United States Supreme Court in April of 1938 had under consideration the constitutionality of the Filled Milk Act of Congress. The court, through Justice Stone, said: ‘Even in the absence of such aids [legislative findings], the existence of facts supporting the legislative judgment is to be presumed, for regulatory legislation affecting ordinary commercial transactions is not to be pronounced unconstitutional unless in the light of the facts made known or generally assumed it is of such a character as to preclude the assumption that it rests upon some rational basis within the knowledge and experience o”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Knoefler · State v. Kainz

2. ““No new commercial location may be established within two miles [3.22 kilometers] of another commercial location. No commercial operator may establish an apiary within two miles [3.22 kilometers] of another commercial operator. The noncommercial beekeeper with one to twenty-four colonies will have territorial rights on one location.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Knoefler · MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Heitkamp

3. “to determine the evils and objectives at which the legislation was aimed as distinguished from the meaning of the statute.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ass'n of Equip. Mfrs. v. Burgum · Association of Equipment Mfr. v. The Hon. Doug Burgum