Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 377 F.2d 901 - Burke v. Ford

Burke v. Ford’s Empirical Analysis

377 F.2d 901 · 1967

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
December 2000
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2000

7 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

5019671970198019902000decided

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.

Appellate journey

Relationships

Relies on Wickard v. Filburn · Kirschbaum v. Walling US Arsenal Bldg Corporation · Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co. · Addyston Pipe Steel Company v. United States · Mandeville Island Farms, Inc. v. American Crystal Sugar Co.

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. “The retailers seem to rest their case on the hypothesis that the mere fact of market division and the resulting reduction in the number of wholesale outlets available to the respective distillers ipso facto proved the requisite adverse effect on the free flow of liquor in interstate commerce. In other words, they seem to argue that from this single fact we must infer that interstate commerce was adversely affected. But this is not so. The single fact of a reduced number of wholesale outlets does not give rise to the necessary implication that interstate commerce was adversely affected. While a division of the market is to be sure a per se violation of the anti-trust law, this postulate presupposes but it does not prove the requisite connection with commerce.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.