League v. Texas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 federal appellate · 5 district · 61 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 129 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““That a state may adopt new remedies for the collection of taxes, and apply those remedies to taxes already delinquent, without any violation of the Federal Constitution, is not a matter of doubt. A delinquent taxpayer has no vested right in an existing mode of collecting taxes. There is no contract between him and the state that the latter will not vary the mode of collection. Indeed, generally speaking, a party has no vested right in a mere matter of remedy; that is subject to legislative change. And a new remedy may be resorted to unless in some of its special provisions a constitutional right of the debtor or obligor is infringed. ‘There is no vested right in a mode of procedure. Each succeeding legislature may establish a different one, providing only that in each are preserved the essential elements of protection.’ ””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 9 N.J. Super. 522 - Vincent, Inc. v. Lambek · 6 N.J. Super. 434 - City of Newark v. Yeskel

2. ““A State may adopt new remedies for the collection of taxes, and apply those remedies to taxes already delinquent,, without any violation of the Federal Constitution. * * # “A delinquent taxpayer who fails to discharge his obligation to the State, compelling it to go into court to enforce payment of the taxes due on his land, has no ground of complaint because he is charged with the ordinary fees and. expenses of a law suit. “The Fourteenth Amendment contains no prohibition of retrospective legislation as such, and therefore, now, as before, the mere fact that a statute is retroactive in its operation does not make it repugnant to the Federal Constitution.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Territory of Alaska v. Hawkins

3. ““That there exists a general power in the state governments to enact retrospective or retroactive laws is a point too well settled to admit of question at this day. The only limit upon this power in the states by the federal Oon-sitution, and therefore the only source of cognizance or control with respect to that power existing in this court, is the provision that these retrospective laws shall not he such as are technically ex post facto, or such as impair the obligation of contracts.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Arbuckle v. Kelley