Rj Reynolds Tobacco Company v. Durham County North Carolina Rj Reynolds Tobacco Company’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
59 federal appellate · 16 district · 64 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 263 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2024 · most notably Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co. (1988), Department of Revenue of Ore. v. ACF Industries, Inc. (1994)
59 federal appellate · 16 district · 64 state decisions — followed in 12 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
Applies 19 U.S.C. § 1311 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1312 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1555 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1556 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1557 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 81C · 28 U.S.C. § 1257
Relies on Doyle v. Ohio · Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. · Michigan v. Long · Hines v. Davidowitz · Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.
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 263 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“when federal law occupies a 'field' of regulation 'so comprehensively that it has left no room for supplementary state legislation.'”
21 later decisions quote this exact passage“The imported tobacco here, we repeat, has nothing transitory about it: it has reached its State — indeed, its county •— of destination and only the payment of the customs duty, after the appropriate aging, separates it from entrance into the domestic market.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Michelin, 423 U.S. at 283 , 96 S.Ct. at 539 . The Supreme Court has since explained its new approach as follows: To repeat: we think it clear that this Court in Michelin specifically abandoned the concept that the Import-Export Clause constituted a broad prohibition against all forms of state taxation that fell on imports. Michelin changed the focus of Import-Export Clause cases from the nature of the goods as imports to the nature of the tax at issue. The new focus is not on whether the goods have lost their status as imports but is, instead, on whether the tax sought to be imposed is an”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.