Marshall v. Wait’s Empirical Analysis
628 F.2d 1255 · 1980
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 30 U.S.C. § 801 (Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972) · 30 U.S.C. § 802 · 30 U.S.C. § 813 · 30 U.S.C. § 818 · 30 U.S.C. § 961
Relies on Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco · See v. City of Seattle · Almeida-Sanchez v. United States · Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc. · Houltin v. United States
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * To emphasize, Wait did not enter a pervasively or traditionally regulated business and thereby subject himself to government supervision and regulation. [Citation omitted.] It would be far more accurate to state that this legislation and regulations adopted pursuant thereto ‘entered’ Wait’s business activity in the very recent past and many decades after its establishment. Under this combination of circumstances, we hold that Wait has not impliedly consented to warrantless inspections of his small, family-owned and operated quarry. * * *' “ * * * Blanket application of this type of regulation to businesses large and small demands that we carefully avoid the trampling under of the rights of those whose expectation of privacy in their enterprises may be real and substantial.””
2 later decisions 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.