State v. Leavitt’s Empirical Analysis
1909
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 4 district · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably American Pelagic Fishing Co. v. United States (2004), State Ex Rel. Bacich v. Huse (1936)
6 federal appellate · 4 district · 26 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
Relies on United States v. Cruikshank · Strauder v. West Virginia · Barbier v. Connolly · Gulf Ry Co v. Ellis · Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Since it must be assumed that the public interest required some limitation upon the right of clam fishing, it does not seem to us that it is unreasonable or - arbitrary for the State having a proprietary interest as well as a governmental power all for the public benefit to give the preference to those whom the law for more than two hundred and fifty years has given a preference, and who were enjoying a preference when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, namely, the inhabitants of the town within which the fisheries are located. The discrimination between them and the inhabitants of other towns seems to us to ‘bear a just and proper relation’ to the difference in situation, in locality and in the actual enjoyment of prior legal rights or privileges. It is not unreasonable that they to whose doors nature has brought these ‘succulent bivalves’ . . . shall be entitled to them before those who are less favorably situated whenever there must be restriction. And we do not think that the legislative recognition of this existing superiority in situation and privilege denies to others the equal protection of the law. “And it may be said further that if the State may, under the circumstances, prefer some, it may so far as the Fourteenth Amendment is concerned, entirely exclude others. A preference violates equality as certainly as exclusion does. “The reasons suggested by us for holding that this discriminating legislation is not inimical to the equal protection clause of the Fourte”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Lemar“`No person shall take or dig or destroy in any manner clams in any of the shores or flats within the town of Scarboro . . . "`The aforesaid section shall not apply to inhabitants or residents of said town taking clams for the use of himself and family nor to hotel keepers within the town taking clams for the use of their hotels.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“`every inhabitant that is a householder shall have free fishing and fowling in any great ponds, bays, coves and rivers, so far as the sea ebbs and flows within the precincts of the town where they dwell, unless the freemen of the same town or the general court have otherwise appropriated them.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Norton
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.