Yamaha Motor Corporation Usa v. Jim's Motorcycle Incorporated B’s Empirical Analysis
401 F.3d 560 · 2005
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Volvo Trademark Holding Aktiebolaget v. Clark Machinery Co. (2007), Walgreen Co. v. Rullan (2005)
8 federal appellate · 3 district · 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 Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission · Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. · Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co. · Maine v. Taylor · Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc.
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is impossible to tell whether a burden on interstate commerce is "clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits" without understanding the magnitude of both burdens and benefits. Exact figures are not essential (no more than estimates may be possible) and the evidence need not be in the record if it is subject to judicial notice, but it takes more than lawyers' talk to condemn a statute under Pike . . . . [W]hoever wants to upset the law bears the[] burden[].”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] "state law [that] discriminates [against interstate commerce] facially, in its practical effect, or in its purpose," [citation omitted], will be struck down unless the state demonstrates "both that the statute serves a legitimate local purpose, and that this purpose could not be served as well by available nondiscriminatory means," Maine v. Taylor, 477 U.S. 131, 138, 106 S.Ct. 2440 , 91 L.Ed.2d 110 (1986).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]lthough the Clause speaks only of congressional power, the Supreme Court since 1852 "has construed the Commerce Clause as incorporating an implicit restraint on state power even in the absence of congressional actionhence the notion of a `dormant' Commerce Clause."”
3 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.