Polar Ice Cream & Creamery Co. v. Andrews’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

42 federal appellate · 39 district · 43 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 186 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he State may not, in the sole interest of promoting the economic welfare of its dairy farmers, insulate [its] milk industry from competition from other States.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Cottrell · Cloverland-Green Spring Dairies, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board Beverly R. Minor, Individually and as Members of the Board Luke F. Brubaker J. Robert Derry, Individually and as Members of the Board, Thomas E. McGlinchey Gertrude Giorgini Sue A. Spigler, ("Milk Consumers"), Intervenors-Plaintiffs, Cloverland-Green Spring Dairies, Inc., (Amended Per Clerk's Order Filed 10/3/01) Cloverland-Green Spring Dairies, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board Beverly R. Minor, Individually and as Chairperson of the Board Luke F. Brubaker J. Robert Derry, Individually and as Members of the Board, Thomas E. McGlinchey Gertrude Giorgini Sue A. Spigler, ("Milk Consumers"), Intervenors-Plaintiffs, Thomas E. McGlinchey Gertrude Giorgini Sue A. Spigler, Individually, and on Behalf of Milk Consumers in Pmmb Areas 1 and 4, (Amended Per Clerk's Order Filed 10/3/01)

2. “Nice distinctions have been made at times between direct and indirect burdens. They are irrelevant when the avowed purpose of the obstruction, as well as its necessary tendency, is to suppress or mitigate the consequences of competition between the states.... If New York, in order to promote the economic welfare of her farmers, may guard them against competition with the cheaper prices of Vermont, the door has been opened to rivalries and reprisals that were meant to be averted by subjecting commerce between the states to the power of the nation. The argument has been pressed upon us, however, that the end to be served by the Milk Control Act is something more than the economic welfare of the farmers or of any other class or classes. The end to be served is the maintenance of a regular and adequate supply of pure and wholesome milk, the supply being put in jeopardy when the farmers of the state are unable to earn a living income. Price security, we are told, is only a special form of sanitary security; the economic motive is secondary and subordinate; the state intervenes to make its inhabitants healthy, and not to make them rich. On that assumption we are asked to say that intervention will be upheld as a valid exercise by the state of its internal police power, though there is an incidental obstruction to commerce between one state and another. This would be to eat up the rule under the guise of an exception. Economic welfare is always related to health, for there can be no”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Marigold Foods, Inc. v. Redalen · Farmland Dairies v. McGuire

3. “as meaning the burden of the tax. 93 Again, in Polar Co. v. Andrews, 375 U.S. 361 , 84 S.Ct. 378, 11 L.Ed.2d 389 (1964), it was said: 94 The incidence of the tax appears to be upon the activity of processing or bottling milk in a plant located within Florida, and not upon work performed on a federal enclave or upon the sale and delivery of milk occurring within the boundaries of federal property. 95 375 U.S. at 382, 84 S.Ct. at 390. 96 Thus, it was using”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mescalero Apache Tribe v. O'cheskey