Budd v. People of State of New York’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 federal appellate · 28 district · 135 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 326 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Pipe Line Cases · Tyson & Brother v. Banton

2. ““The opinion further said that the criticism to which the ease of Munn v. Illinois had been subjected proceeded mainly upon a limited and strict construction and definition of the police power; that there was little reason, under our system of government, for placing a close and narrow interpretation on the police power, or restricting its scope so as to hamper the legislative power in dealing with the varying necessities of society and the new circumstances as they arise calling for legislative intervention in the public interest; and that no serious invasion of constitutional guarantees by the Legislature could withstand for a long time the searching influence of public opinion, which was sure to come sooner or later to the side of law, order, and justice, however it might have been swayed for a time by passion, prejudice, or whatever aberrations might have marked its course. We regard these views which we have referred to as announced by the Court of Appeals of New York, so far as they support the validity of the statute in question, as sound and just.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Home Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City of Los Angeles

3. ““Against the argument that the statute was such a despotic interference with the rights of private property as to be tantamount, in its practical effect, to a deprivation of ownership, 'without due process of law/ the Court said that the statute sought only to regulate and control the transportation of cotton in one particular condition of it, and was a mere police regulation, to which there was no constitutional objection, citing Munn v. Illinois ( 94 U. S. 113 , 24 L. Ed. 77 ). It added that the object of the statute was to regulate traffic in the staple agricultural product of the State, so as to prevent a prevalent evil, which, in the opinion. of the lawmaking power, might do much to demoralize agricultural labor and to destroy the legitimate profits of agricultural pursuits, to the public detriment, at least within the specified territory.””

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