Cheatham County v. Murff’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The object of the constitutional provision under consideration was to prevent the pernicious practice of enacting statutes whose effect was unknown to the members of the Legislature and to the people. * * * To direct the attention of the Legislature to the existing law and the proposed change and-thus/prevent improvident -legislation. .[ 176 Tenn. at 102 , 138 S.W.2d at 433 ]. • ■ • When, under an appropriate caption, an Act of the Legislature on its face plainly discloses its whole effect and where it is independently operative, neither legislators nor the people- would be further enlighténé'd as to its scope by a recital of the title or substance of former laws. If there is irreconcilable conflict, the former laws are repealed by implication. If there is no such conflict and the earlier and later laws involve the . same subject matter, they will he .construed;' in pari materia.” ( 176 Tenn. at 103 ,. 138 S.W.2d at 433 .)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 58 Tenn. App. 214 - Rains v. Rains

2. ““ ‘No one has the right to attack a particular provision in a statute as unconstitutional unless it affects him adversely. This court has said, when an Act is void under the one-subject clause of the Constitution, “anyone against whom such an act is sought to be enforced may attack it on that ground, and if successful he will be relieved of whatever burden the statute in any of its parts seems to impose on him.” State v. Cumberland Club, 136 Tenn. 84, 101 , 188 S.W. 583 , 587.’ Cheatham County v. Murff, 176 Tenn. 93, 105 , 138 S.W.2d 430, 434 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Halpin v. State

3. ““The fifth assignment of error is directed to a provision of the Act which Chancellor held bad and elided. There was no appeal from the action of the Chancellor and we think that he was obviously correct. The particular provision was easily severable. By this provision an individual named was designated to hold the office of road supervisor from the passage of the Act until September 1,1940. ’ ’ Cheatham County v. Murff, 176 Tenn. 93, 105-106 , 138 S. W. 2d 430, 434 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hicks v. Rhea County