Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 447 U.S. 27 - Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc.

Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

930
cited by 930 later decisions
65
cited 65 times by the Supreme Court
30
states following
December 2024
most recently cited

238 federal appellate · 121 district · 160 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 930 later decisions (65 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2024 · most notably Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co. (1981), Edgar v. Mite Corp. (1982)

238 federal appellate · 121 district · 160 state decisions — followed in 30 states

376019801990200020102020decided

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

Applies 12 U.S.C. § 1841 (§ 2 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956) · 12 U.S.C. § 1842 (§ 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956) · 12 U.S.C. § 1843 (§ 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956) · 12 U.S.C. § 1846 (§ 7 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956) · 12 U.S.C. § 21 · 12 U.S.C. § 36 · 12 U.S.C. § 92A · 15 U.S.C. § 77A (§ 1 of the Securities Act of 1933)

Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission · Burford v. Sun Oil Co. · Pike v. Bruce Church, 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 930 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Where the statute regulates evenhandedly to effectuate a legitimate local public interest, and its effects on interstate commerce are only incidental, it will be upheld unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.... If a legitimate local purpose is found, then the question becomes one of degree. And the extent of the burden that will be tolerated will of course depend on the nature of the local interest involved, and on whether it could be promoted as well with a lesser impact on interstate activities.”
    19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “limits the power of the States to erect barriers against interstate trade.”
    18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[i]n the absence of conflicting federal legislation, the States retain authority under their general police powers to regulate matters of 'legitimate local concern,' even though interstate commerce may be affected.”
    17 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.