Voran v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The legislature shall provide for a uniform and equal rate of assessment and taxation,' except that mineral products, money, mortgages, notes and other evidence of debt may be classified and taxed uniformly as to class as the legislature shall provide. All property used exclusively for state, county, municipal, literary, educational, scientific, religious, benevolent and charitable purposes, and personal property to the amount of at least two hundred dollars for each family, shall be exempted from taxation.” (Italics inserted.)-”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hunt v. Eddy · In Re Tax Appeal of ANR Pipeline Co.

2. ““ ‘It is a fundamental principal that a statute may be constitutional in one part and unconstitutional in another part, and that if the invalid part is severable from the rest the portion which is constitutional may stand while that which is unconstitutional is stricken out and rejected/ “This court, in the case of State, ex rel., v. Hilty, 97 Kan. 91 , 154 Pac. 214 , has sanctioned and approved such a course in separating and excluding the objectionable and invalid parts or portions of an act and retaining the balance as constitutional. “ ‘This invalid provision is not such an integral portion of the whole law as to be inseparable; . . . and this does not violate the legislative intent or impair the efficacy of the law.' (Harrod v. Latham, 77 Kan. 466 , syl. ¶ 3, 95 Pac. 11 . See, also, Hardy v. Kingman County, 65 Kan. 111 , 68 Pac. 1078 ; State, ex rel., v. Howat, 107 Kan. 423 , 191 Pac. 585 ; State v. Howat et al., 116 Kan. 412 , 227 Pac. 752 .)” [See also State, ex rel., v. Stonehouse Drainage Dist., 152 Kan. 188 , 102 P. 2d 1017 .]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Felten Truck Line, Inc. v. State Board of Tax Appeals

3. ““We think that where different acts affecting the same subject matter are enacted at the same session of the legislature and take effect about the same time, they should all be considered together to ascertain the real legislative purpose and intent. “ ‘Laws enacted by the same legislature about the same time and concerning the same subject matter, being in pari materia, are to be taken and considered together in order to determine the legislative purpose and arrive at the true result.’ (In re Hall, Petitioner, 38 Kan. 670 , 17 Pac. 649 . See, also, Railway Co. v. Railway Commissioners, 85 Kan. 229 , 116 Pac. 896 ; State, ex rel., v. City of Lawrence, 98 Kan. 808 , 160 Pac. 217 .)””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kronvall v. Garvey