Newton v. Commissioners’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 5 district · 96 state decisions

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 172 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The legislative power of a State, except so far as restrained by its own Constitution, is at all times absolute with respect to all offices within its reach. It may at pleasure create or abolish them or modify their duties. It may also shorten or lengthen the term of service. And it may increase or diminish the salary or change the mode of compensation."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 134 So. 2d 627 - Lelong v. Sutherland · Goldsmith v. Mayor of Baltimore

2. ““Undoubtedly, there are cases in which a state may, as it were, lay aside its sovereignty and contract like an individual, and be bound accordingly. Curran v. Arkansas, 15 How. 304 [14 L. Ed. 705]; Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall. (83 U. S.) 203, 21 L. Ed. 447 . The cases in which such contracts have been sustained and enforced are very numerous. Many of them are cases in which the question was presented whether a private act of incorporation, or one or more of its clauses, is a contract wi thin the 'meaning of the national Constitution. * * * The Dartmouth College Case, 4 Wheat. 518 [ 4 L. Ed. 629 ], was the pioneer in this field of our jurisprudence. The principle there laid down, and since maintained in the cases which have followed and been controlled by it, has no application where the statute in question is a public law relating to a public subject within the domain of the general legislative power of the state, and involving the public rights and public welfare of the entire community affected by it. The two classes of cases are separated by a broad line of demarcation. The distinction was forced upon the attention of the court by the argument in the Dartmouth College Case. Mr. Chief Justice Marshall said: ‘That, anterior to the formation of the Constitution, a course of legislation had prevailed in many, if not all, of the states, which weakened the confidence of man in man, and embarrassed all transactions between individuals, by dispensing with a faithful performance of enga”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith, Secretary of State v. State Hepburn

3. ““The same reasoning pushed a step further in the same direction would involve the same result with respect to the seat of government of a ¡state. If a state capital were sought to be removed, under the circumstances of this case with respect to the county seat, whatever the public exigencies or the force of the public sentiment which demanded it, those interested, as atre the plaintiffs in error, might according to their argument, effectually forbid and prevent it; and this result could be brought about by means of a bill in equity and a perpetual injunction. It is true a state cannot be sued without its consent, ‘ but this would be a small obstacle in the way of the assertion of so potent- a right. Though the state cannot be sued its officers whose acts were illegal and void may be. Osborn v. Bank, 9 Wheat. 738 , 6 L. Ed. 204 ; Davis v. Gray [ 16 Wall. 203 , 21 L. Ed. 447 ]. A proposition leading to such a consequence must be unsound. The parent and the offspring are alike. Armstrong v. Com’rs, 4 Blackf. [Ind.] 208””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith, Secretary of State v. State Hepburn