Itt Lamp Division of the International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation v. Stephen A. Minter, Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Publicwelfare, Maurice Concrete Products, Inc. v. Stephen A. Minter, Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Publicwelfare’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 federal appellate · 8 district · 7 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “* * * Where Congress has not clearly manifested its purpose to exclude state action which takes the form of exercise of its historic police powers, such state action will not be invalidated under the Supremacy Clause, “in the absence of persuasive reasons”, Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142 [ 83 S.Ct. 1210 , 10 L.Ed.2d 248 ] (1963), or unless the administration of the state law “palpably infringes” upon the federal policy. Southern Pac. Co. v. Arizona ex rel. Sullivan, 325 U.S. 761 , 766 [65 S.Ct. 1515 , 89 L.Ed. 1915 ] (1945). See also Head v. New Mexico Bd. of Examiners, 374 U.S. 424 [ 83 S.Ct. 1759 , 10 L.Ed.2d 983 ] (1963); Buck v. California, 343 U.S. 99 [ 72 S.Ct. 502 , 96 L.Ed. 775 ] (1952). [Footnote omitted.]”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Sun Oil Co. · GRINNELL CORPORATION v. Hackett

2. ““This very catalogue of data relevant to a macrocosmic weighing, which a court, if called upon would have to undertake, indicates the preferable forum to be the Congress. Congress would be particularly appropriate in resolving this issue. The activity allegedly intruding into federal labor policy is not solely a state activity but rather a joint state-federal program. Congress has established the minimal requirements with which participating state welfare plans must comply. 42 U.S.C. § 602 , et seq. We do not attribute heavy weight to Congressional silence, but we would doubt that, if striker eligibility for welfare had a significant impact on labor-management relations, Congress would be unaware of that impact. Moreover, if the issue proves to be finely balanced, after weighing all the evidence, it may be a sufficient justification for upholding the state action that Congress is always free to provide specifically for preemption. See Penn Dairies v. Milk Control Comm., 318 U.S. 261, 275 , 63 S.Ct. 617 , 87 L.Ed. 748 (1943). In sum, wholly apart from the inadequacy of the evidence before the district court, we have substantial doubt that a significant frustration of federal collective bargaining policy is effected by the granting of welfare benefits to indigent strikers or that, even so, the state interest is so insubstantial compared to the federal interest that Congress must be supposed to have deprived the state of such power to serve that interest. We accordingly hold tha”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. GRINNELL CORPORATION v. Hackett · Grinnell Corp. v. Hackett

3. ““In sum, wholly apart from the inadquacy of the evidence before the district court, we have substantial doubt that a significant frustration of federal collective bargaining policy is effected by the granting of welfare benefits to indigent strikers or that, even so, the state interest is so insubstantial compared to the federal interest that Congress must be supposed to have deprived the state of such power to serve that interest.” 435 F.2d at 994.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Grinnell Corp. v. Hackett · Grinnell Corp. v. Hackett