Retail Digital Network, LLC v. Appelsmith’s Empirical Analysis
810 F.3d 638 · 2016
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 27 U.S.C. § 205 (Federal Alcohol Administration Act)
Relies on Bennett v. Spear · Central Hudson Gas Electric Corporation v. Public Service Commission of New York · Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc. · Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts · Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No manufacturer, winegrower, manufacturer’s agent, California winegrower's agent, rectifier, distiller, bottler,' importer, or wholesaler, or any officer, director, or agent of any such person, shall do any of the following: (f) Pay, credit, or compensate a retailer or retailers for advertising, display, or distribution service in connection with the advertising and sale of distilled spirits. (g) Furnish, give, lend, or rent, directly or indirectly, to any person any decorations, paintings, or signs, other than signs advertising their own products as permitted by Section 25611.1. (h)Pay money or give or furnish anything of value for the privilege of placing or painting a sign or advertisement, or window display, on or in any premises selling alcoholic beverages at retail.”
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.