Hoover v. Ronwin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

244 federal appellate · 79 district · 49 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 678 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In the years since the decision in Parker , the Court has had occasion in several cases to determine the scope of the state-action doctrine. It has never departed, however, from Parker’s basic reasoning.... If the replacing of entirely free competition with some form of regulation or restraint was not authorized or approved by the State then the rationale of Parker is inapposite. As a result, in cases involving the anti-competitive conduct of a nonsovereign state representative the Court has required a showing that the conduct is pursuant to a “clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed state policy” to replace competition with regulation. The Court also has found the degree to which the state legislature or supreme court supervises its representative to be relevant to the inquiry. When the conduct is that of the sovereign itself, on the other hand, the danger of unauthorized restraint of trade does not arise. Where the conduct at issue is in fact that of the state legislature or supreme court, we need not address the issues of “clear articulation” and “active supervision.””

   25 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Tarkanian · Marrese v. Interqual, Inc.

2. “[A]ny action that qualifies as state action is 'ipso facto ... exempt from the operation of the antitrust laws'....”

   13 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc. · North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission

3. “We find nothing in the language of the Sherman Act or in its history which suggests that its purpose was to restrain a state or its officers or agents from activities directed by its legislature. In a dual system of government in which, under the Constitution, the states are sovereign, save only as Congress may constitutionally subtract from their authority, an unexpressed purpose to nullify a state’s control over its officers and agents is not lightly to be attributed to Congress.”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc. · Deak-Perera Hawaii, Inc. v. Department of Transportation