521 F. Supp. 2d 246 - United States v. Morrison’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Defendant’s interpretation is strained because it relies solely on the executive branch’s enforcement policies rather than the ■ applicable State laws, which clearly provide that Morrison’s sale of cigarettes to non-native Americans on the reservation is a taxable event. Defendant’s interpretation essentially nullifies the requirements of state law as that term is commonly understood and reads the legislature right out of the picture. Simply stated, states “require” certain conduct via duly enacted laws; the failure of the executive branch to enforce the law is not the same as saying that the legislative branch has repealed it.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Morrison · 550 F. Supp. 2d 332 - City of New York v. Milhelm Attea & Bros., Inc.

2. “It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to ship, transport, receive, possess, sell, distribute, or purchase contraband cigarettes or contraband smokeless tobacco.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Morrison · 706 F. Supp. 2d 304 - United States v. Morrison

3. “The CCTA was enacted in 1978. At the time of its enactment, the clear intent of Congress was to pass legislation to deal with large-scale cigarette bootlegging and the involvement of organized crime because the states had theretofore been unable to successfully address the problem themselves. See S. Rep. 95-962 (2d Sess. 1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5518, 5526. As stated in the relevant Senate Report: We continue to believe that many of the states most affected have not made serious commitments to the enforcement effort in this area .... We continue to believe strongly that primary efforts to stop cigarette smuggling must be made by the states affected. However, we recognize that federal legislation in aid of state enforcement effort may be desirable, if not essential, in light of the interstate nature of the problem. Id. Thus, contrary to Defendant’s assertions, “it should of be of no surprise that the federal government would utilize the CCTA under these circumstances precisely because of the State’s forbearance policy, i.e., because New York was not getting the job done itself, and not in spite of it.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Morrison