Veazie v. Moor’s Empirical Analysis
55 U.S. 568 · 1852
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 10 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions (20 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably United States v. Lopez (1995), Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
6 federal appellate · 10 district · 16 state decisions
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
Relies on Gibbons v. Ogden · Brown v. Maryland · George Smith v. William Turner Health-Commissioner of the Port of New York James Norris · Mayor Aldermen Commonalty New York v. George Miln
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Commerce with foreign nations must signify commerce which in some sense is necessarily connected with these nations, transactions which either immediately or at some stage of their progress must be extraterritorial. The phrase can never be applied to transactions wholly internal, between citizens of the same community, or to a polity and laws whose ends and purposes and operations are restricted to the territory and soil and jurisdiction of such community. Nor can it be properly concluded that, because the products of a domestic enterprise in agriculture or manufactures, or in the arts, may ultimately become the subjects of foreign commerce, that the * * * means or * * * encouragements by which enterprise is fostered and protected, is legitimately within the import of the phrase foreign commerce, or fairly implied in any investiture of the power to regulate such commerce. A pretension as far-reaching as this would extend to contracts between citizen and citizen of- the same state, would control the pursuits of the planter, the grazier, the manufacturer, the mechanic, the immense operations of the collieries and mines and furnaces of the country; for there is not one of these * * * which may not become the subjects of foreign commerce. * * * Such a pretension would effectually prevent or paralyze every effort at internal improvement by the several States,” etc.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The design and effect of that power, as evinced in the history of the Constitution, was to establish a perfect equality amongst the several states as to commercial rights, and to prevent unjust and invidious distinctions, which local jealousies, or local and partial interests, might he disposed to introduce and maintain.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“must signify commerce which, in some sense, is necessarily connected with these Nations, transactions which either immediately or at some stage of their progress must be extraterritorial.”
1 later decision 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.