Evansville-Vanderburgh Airport Authority District v. Delta Airlines, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
121 federal appellate · 42 district · 118 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 464 later decisions (35 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2019 · most notably Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County (1974), Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Ore. (1994)
121 federal appellate · 42 district · 118 state decisions — followed in 23 states
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 Griffin v. Breckenridge · Shapiro v. Thompson · Dunn v. Blumstein · Graham v. Richardson · Lovell v. City of Griffin
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 464 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“At least so long as the toll is based on some fair approximation of use or privilege for use [of a state facility], ... and is neither discriminatory against interstate commerce nor excessive in comparison with the governmental benefit conferred, it will pass constitutional muster, even though some other formula might reflect more exactly the relative use of the state facilities by individual users.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a charge designed only to make the user of state-provided facilities pay a reasonable fee to help defray the costs of their construction and maintenance may constitutionally be imposed ... so long as the toll is based on some fair approximation of use or privilege for use ... and is neither discriminatory against interstate commerce nor excessive in comparison with the governmental benefit conferred.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]here a state at its own expense furnishes special facilities for the use of those engaged in commerce, interstate as well as domestic, it may exact compensation therefor. The amount of the charges and the method of collection are primarily for determination of the state itself; and so long as they are reasonable and are fixed according to some fair and practical standard, they constitute no burden on interstate commerce, (citations omitted). The action of the state must be treated as correct unless the contrary is made to appear. In the instant case there is no evidence concerning the value of the facilities supplied by the state, the cost of maintaining them, or the fairness of the methods adopted for collecting the charges imposed; and we cannot say from the mere inspection of the statute that its provisions are arbitrary or unreasonable. (underscoring supplied). [S]o long as the toll is based on some fair approximation of use or privilege . .. and is neither discriminatory against interstate commerce nor excessive in comparison with the governmental benefit conferred, it will pass constitutional muster, even though some other formula might reflect more exactly the relative use of the state facilities by individual users.”
4 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.