Bainbridge v. Turner’s Empirical Analysis
311 F.3d 1104 · 2002
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2022 · most notably Granholm Governor of Michigan et al. v. Heald et al. (2005), Locke v. Shore (2011)
14 federal appellate · 3 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
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission · Brown-Forman Distillers Corporation v. New York State Liquor Authority · 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island · Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[b] efore the State can successfully raise the Twenty-first Amendment as a shield, it must show that its statutory scheme is necessary to effectuate the proffered core concern in a way that justifies treating out-of-state firms differently from instate firms ....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“of the Twenty-first Amendment is implicated. When such a concern is implicated, the Amendment removes the constitutional cloud from the challenged law so long as the state demonstrates that it genuinely needs the law to effectuate its proffered core concern. In no event can the law directly regulate extraterritorially; nor can a law ever be motivated by”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Congress might decide to permit an otherwise unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce in one of two ways, either by ordinary legislation or by an amendment to the Constitution. It would be odd to say that the latter—here, the Twenty-first Amendment—does not immunize states from Commerce Clause scrutiny, but that the former does.”
2 later decisions 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.