District of Columbia v. Greater Washington Board of Trade’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

241 federal appellate · 164 district · 156 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 885 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “even if the law is not specifically designed to affect such plans, or the effect is only indirect.”

   67 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Insurance · California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Construction, N. A.

2. “[p]reemption does not occur ... if the state law has only a tenuous, remote, or peripheral connection with covered plans, as is the case with many laws of general applicability.”

   30 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Insurance · Burgio & Campofelice, Inc. v. NYS Dep't of Labor

3. “[s]ome state actions may affect employee benefit plans in too tenuous, remote, or peripheral a manner to warrant a finding that the law 'relates to' the plan.”

   14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Thiokol Corporation, Morton International, Inc. (As Successors Through Corporate Reorganization to Morton, Thiokol, Inc.) and Bee Chemical Company v. Douglas B. Roberts, in His Official Capacity as Treasurer of the State of Michigan, and Thomas M. Hoatlin, in His Official Capacity as Commissioner of Revenue of the State of Michigan, Akzo America, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Akzo Chemicals, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Akzo Coatings, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Akzo Salt, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Beecham, Inc. (Tn), a Tennessee Corporation, Beloit Corp., a Delaware Corporation, Boc Group, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Boc Healthcare Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Butler Manufacturing Co., a Delaware Corporation, Coca Cola Company, a Delaware Corporation, Georgia-Pacific Corp., a Georgia Corporation, Hanischfeger Corp., a Delaware Corporation, Jefferson Smurfit Corp., a Delaware Corporation, Kroger Co., an Ohio Corporation, M-I Drilling Fluids Co., a Texas Partnership, May Department Stores Co., a New York Corporation, Miles, Inc., an Indiana Corporation, Quaker Chemical Corp., a Pennsylvania Corporation, Sears Roebuck and Co., a New York Corporation, Timken Company, an Ohio Corporation, Upjohn Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, and W.R. Grace & Co., a Connecticut Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees/cross-Appellants v. Revenue Division, Department of Treasury, State of Michigan Douglas B. Roberts, in His Official Capacity as Treasurer of the State of Michigan and Thomas M. Hoatlin, in His Official Capacity as Commissioner of Revenue of the State of Michigan · 643 So. 2d 575 - Ingram v. American Chambers Life Ins. Co.