Merced County v. Helm & Nolan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Any attempt on the part of the state, or of the county, as one of the subdivisions of the state, to take the property of an individual for public purposes by way of taxation, must find an express statutory warrant, and all laws having this object are to be construed strictly in favor of the individual as against the state.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 13 Cal. 2d 729 - People v. Mahoney · Connelly v. City & County of San Francisco

2. ““By its very terms the ordinance is a revenue measure, and this suit- is simply a civil action to recover a liability alleged to have been incurred by the defendants by virtue of the provisions of the ordinance; and the collection of a tax does not come within the exercise of police power as a prohibitory measure. That power is exercised in the enforcement of a penalty prescribed for a noncompliance .with the law, or for the doing of some prohibited act. (San Luis Obispo County v. Hendricks, 71 Cal. 245 , [ 11 Pac. 682 ].) As the County has chosen by this ordinance to require a license tax for engaging in certain kinds of business, and that this tax shall be collected by a suit, and has fixed no penalty for engaging in the business, the ordinance is not to be regarded as the exercise of its police power, but rather as its desire to regulate the business and derive a revenue therefrom. ’ ’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 9 Cal. App. 70 - Town of Selma v. Brewer

3. ““ ‘ The principle of all fiscal legislation is, that if the person sought to be taxed comes within the letter of the law, he must be taxed, however great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind to be. On the other hand, if the crown, seeking to recover the tax, cannot bring the subject within the letter of the law, the subject is free, however apparently within the spirit of the law the case might otherwise appear to be. In other words, if there be admissible in any statute what is called an equitable construction, certainly such a constrfiction is not admissible in a taxing statute, where you can simply adhere to the words of the statute.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex parte Seube