Atkinson v. Sapperstein’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 52 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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the Courts are disposed to uphold rather than to defeat the statute, and since every presumption favors the validity of a statute, it cannot be stricken down as void, unless it plainly contravenes a provision of the Constitution; a reasonable doubt in its favor is enough to sustain it”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States v. State Commission on Human Relations · State's Attorney v. Triplett

2. ““In the case at bar the appellee is not contending for an interpretation of the statutes here in question. He is asking this Court to declare them null and void because he alleges that the law enforcement agencies have not enforced them. It is one thing to interpret a statute according to the way it has been administered. It is entirely a different thing to declare a stat ute null and void on account of its total non-enforcement. In Arnreich v. State, supra, the administrative authorities interpreted the statute there in question to exempt those who operated stalls in the markets. The provisions of the code here in question have been amended many times by the Legislature, as late as the year 1937. We cannot say, as was said in Arnreich v. State, supra, that the Legislature has acquiesced in an administrative declaration that these provisions are invalid. The instant case comes within the limitation of the rule set out in Arnreich v. State, supra, where the Court said at pages 105 and 106 of 150 Md., at page 436 of 132 A: “We are not unmindful of the limitation upon this rule as expressed in the case of Smith v. State, 134 Md. 473 , [480], 107 A. 255 , in which it was said: ‘When the question is presented to it of a laxity in enforcement, or misconception of the intent of the law by administrative officers whose duty it was to carry out the act of the Legislature, such omission or misconception of clear statutory provisions cannot be allowed to stand in the way of giving to th”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Salisbury Beauty Schools v. State Board of Cosmetologists

3. ““It follows that a restriction in the title must either confine the operation of the act to conform to that description, if such a construction is possible, or render the act void to the extent of the conflict.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 10 Md. App. 526 - Buckheit v. Buckheit