State v. Vocelle’s Empirical Analysis
1947
Citation profile
47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently May 1994 · most notably 387 So. 2d 943 - State v. Hagan (1980), 636 So. 2d 1358 - Pallas v. State (1994)
47 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Mugler v. State of Kansas State of Kansas Tufts · Mahoney v. Joseph Triner Corp. · State ex rel. Crumpton v. Montgomery · Premier-Pabst Sales Co. v. Grosscup · South Atlantic Steamship Co. of Delaware v. Tutson
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`It is established law that a sovereign state, when functioning under its police power, may enact such measures as are reasonably calculated to be essential or necessary in behalf of the general welfare for the control and regulation not only of the sale but the possession of intoxicating liquors. The form or method of regulation and control is one of public policy for the decision of each state, and frequently the prevailing view is reflected by appropriate legislative enactments.'"”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * * It is generally recognized that the act of engaging in the sale of intoxicating liquors may be forbidden or prohibited. The sale thereof is a privilege to be granted pursuant to law under restricted terms or conditions because of the injurious effect of its use on the health and general welfare. * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A litigant is not heard to urge the unconstitutionality of a statute who is not harmfully affected by the particular features of the statutes alleged to be in conflict with the constitution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.