Actmedia, Inc. v. Stroh’s Empirical Analysis
830 F.2d 957 · 1986
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably Huang v. Board of Governors (1990), Marion Dale Jackson (1999)
14 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 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 27 U.S.C. § 205 (Federal Alcohol Administration Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Edelman v. Jordan · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · Vandygriff v. Phillips · Central Hudson Gas Electric Corporation v. Public Service Commission of New York
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 34 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.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“At the outset, we must determine whether the expression is protected by the First Amendment. For commercial speech to come within that provision, it at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. Next, we ask whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial. If both inquiries yield positive answers, we must determine whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“underlying philosophy in adopting the tied-house statutes was to establish a `triple-tiered distribution and licensing scheme' that would keep the manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers of alcoholic beverages separate from one another and would prevent vertical or horizontal integration”
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.