Ritchie v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 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. ““825.6 — Removal of tenant — (a) Restriction on removal of tenant. So long as the tenant continues to pay the rent to which the landlord is entitled, no tenant shall be removed from any housing accommodations by action to evict or to recover possession, by exclusion from possession, or otherwise, nor shall any person attempt such removal or exclusion from possession, nothwithstanding that such tenant has no lease or that his lease or other rental agreement has expired or otherwise terminated, and regardless of any contract, lease, agreement or. obligation here tofore or hereafter entered into which provides for surrender of p'os-session, or for entry of judgment upon the tenant’s confession for breach of the covenants thereof, or which otherwise provides contrary hereto, except on one or more of the grounds specified in this paragraph (a), or. unless the landlord has obtained a certificate in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section: Provided, however, That no provisions of this section shall be construed to authorize the removal of a tenant unless such removal is authorized under local law.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Asociación Cooperativa del Falansterio v. Navarro

2. “. . By section 204 (d) it is provided that the Emergency Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court upon review of its judgments and orders shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of any regulation or order issued . . . and— “ ‘Except as provided in this section, no court, Federal, State, or Territorial, shall have jurisdiction or power to consider the validity of any such regulation [or] order ... or to restrain or enjoin . . . enforcement. . . ” (p. 109.) “. . . Under [the Act’s] terms our jurisdiction is limited, and we may not consider the validity of any regulation or order issued by the administrator of the Act, nor enjoin the enforcement thereof. If the appellant believes that such regulations or orders are unduly restrictive or arbitrary, his remedy is to follow the procedure for administrative review leading up to a hearing before the Emergency Court of Appeals. . . .” (p. 118.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 1 Kan. App. 2d 301 - Allen v. Craig

3. ““. . . Although congress may have power to withhold from state courts jurisdiction over any matter within the judicial power of the United States (see the classic case of Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. [19 U.S.] 264, 25 L. Ed. 191 ) in the present instance it did not do so further than as provided in the portion of the Act as quoted above. It appears the restriction on jurisdiction pertains to regulations or orders made under the Act, and not to the Act itself. ... If the Act is not constitutional, the provision relied on by appellees is not good. In our opinion the trial court had jurisdiction to determine whether the Act was a valid constitutional enactment.” (p. 112.) (Emphasis supplied.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 1 Kan. App. 2d 301 - Allen v. Craig