W.C.M. Window Co. v. Bernardi’s Empirical Analysis
730 F.2d 486 · 1984
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably National Metalcrafters v. McNeil (1986), Hoover v. Wagner (1995)
38 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1254 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Younger v. Harris · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. State of Alabama Patterson · Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass'n · Hicks v. Miranda · Gibson v. Berryhill
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“could do great damage to the principles of free trade on which the negative commerce clause is based.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In sum, Camden may, without fear of violating the Commerce Clause, pressure private employers engaged in public works projects funded in whole or in part by the city to hire city residents.”); White v. Massachusetts Council of Constr. Employers, Inc., 460 U.S. 204 , 210, 103 S.Ct. 1042 , 1046, 75 L.Ed.2d 1 (1983) ("If the city is a market participant, then the Commerce Clause establishes no barrier to conditions such as[residency requirements] which the city demands for its participation. Impact on out-of-state residents figures in the equation only after it is decided that the city is regulating the market rather than participating in it, for only in the former case need it be determined whether any burden on interstate commerce is permitted by the Commerce Clause.”
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.