Baker v. Kelley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 26 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘Due process of law,’ without which the Constitution declares no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, is not merely an act of the Legislature. * * * In Wynehamer v. People, 13 N. Y. 378 , Comstock, J., says: « * * ‘To sayj as has been suggested, that “the law of the land,” or “due process of law,” may mean the very act of the Legislature which deprives the citizen of his rights, privileges, or property, leads to a simple absurdity. The Constitution would then mean that no person should be deprived of his property or rights unless the Legislature shall pass a law to effect the wrong, and this would be throwing the restraint away.’ * * * Selden, J„ in the same case, says: ‘To give this clause [of the Constitution above referred to] * * * any value, it must be understood to mean that no person shall be deprived by any form of legislative or governmental action of either life, liberty, or property, except as the consequence of some judicial proceeding appropriately and legally conducted. It follows that a law, which, by its own inherent force, extinguishes rights of property, or compels their extinction without any legal proceedings whatever, comes directly in conflict with the Constitution.’ ” Baker v. Kelley, 11 Minn. 480 (Gil. 358). “It must be ascertained judicially that he has forfeited his privileges, or that some one has a superior title to the land he possesses, before either can be taken from him. It cannot be done by mere legislation. If the Legisla”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. King v. Hatfield

2. “Statutes of limitation act only on the remedy; they prescribe a period within which a right may be enforced, afterward withholding a remedy for reasons of private justice and public policy. It would encourage fraud, oppression, and interminable litigation, to permit a party to delay a contest until it is probable that papers may be lost, facts forgotten, or witnesses dead. A limitation law is intended to prevent this, and such a law is uniformly held valid.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lloyd F. Smith Co., Inc. v. Den-Tal-Ez