Alexander v. Cahill’s Empirical Analysis
598 F.3d 79 · 2010
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 46 · 49 U.S.C. § 1136
Relies on Central Hudson Gas Electric Corporation v. Public Service Commission of New York · Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc. · Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission · Bates v. State Bar of Arizona · Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Though the label communicates no information beyond the source of the product, we think that minimal information, conveyed in the context of a proposal of a commercial transaction, suffices to invoke the protections for commercial speech, articulated in Central Hudson.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.