California v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 federal appellate · 6 district · 137 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 312 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““As this Court has often had occasion to point out, the Commerce Clause, in conferring on Congress power to regulate commerce, did not wholly withdraw from the states the power to regulate matters of local concern with respect to which Congress has not exercised its power, even though the regulation affects interstate commerce. Ever since Willson v. Black Bird Creek Marsh Co., 2 Pet. 245 , 7 L. Ed. 412 , and Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 12 How. 299 , 13 L. Ed. 996 , it has been recognized that there are matters of local concern, the regulation of which unavoidably involves some regulation of interstate commerce, but which because of their local character and their number and diversity may never be adequately dealt with by Congress. Because of their local character, aso, there is wide scope for local regulation without impairing the uniformity of control of the national commerce in matters of national concern and without materially obstructing the free flow of commerce which were the principal objects sought to be secured by the Commerce Clause. Notwithstanding the Commerce Clause, such regulation in the absence of Congressional action has, for the most part, been left to the states by the decisions of this Court, subject only to other applicable constitutional restraints. See cases collected in DiSanto v. Pennsylvania, supra, 273 U. S. [34], 40, 47 S. Ct. [267], 269, 71 L. Ed. 524 [528].””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Slater v. Salt Lake City · Abbott Laboratories v. Durrett

2. “Fraudulent or unconscionable conduct of those so engaged which is injurious to their patrons, is peculiarly a subject of local concern and the appropriate subject of local regulation.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Milwaukee Braves, Inc. · 684 So. 2d 746 - Dept. of Banking and Finance v. Credicorp

3. ““It (meaning the Supreme Court of the United States) has uniformly held that in the absence of of pertinent Congressional legislation there is constitutional power in the states to regulate interstate commerce by motor vehicle wherever it affects the safety of the public or the safety and con venient use of its highways, provided only that the regulation does not in any other respect unnecessarily obstruct interstate commerce.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Nagle