Allright Colorado, Inc. v. City & County of Denver’s Empirical Analysis
937 F.2d 1502 · 1991
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 11 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Zimomra v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. (1997), Branson v. Port of Seattle (2004)
9 federal appellate · 11 district · 6 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 15 U.S.C. § 2 (§ 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center · City of New Orleans v. Dukes · Parker v. Brown · Nebbia v. People of State of New York · Mahan & Rowsey, Inc. v. Oklahoma Natural Gas
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In connection with the erection, maintenance, and operation of any ... airport ..., any county has the power and jurisdiction ... to regulate the receipt, deposit, and removal and the embarkation of passengers or property to or from such airports; to exact and require charges, fees, and tolls, together with a lien to enforce their payment ...”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t is sufficient if the legislature could rationally have concluded that th[is] purpose[ ] would be achieved.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“But plainly the requirement of “clear articulation and affirmative expression” is not satisfied when the State’s position is one of mere neutrality respecting the ... actions challenged as anticompeti-tive. A State that allows its [political subdivisions] to do as they please can hardly be said to have “contemplated” the specific anticompetitive actions for which ... liability is sought. Nor can those actions be truly described as “comprehended within the powers granted,” since the term, “granted,” necessarily implies an affirmative addressing of the subject by the State.”
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.