Joyner v. Centre Motor Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The vice in and resultant unconstitutionality of this legislation is that it presupposes that unenfranchised dealers constitute a class who alone are capable of fraudulent and sharp practice, and that dealers who hold franchises are immune from and incapable of committing the wrongs and dishonest acts sought to be guarded against. "However bona fide the assertion that this legislation is for the public welfare, and though earnest effort be made to impart to it the appearance of fairness and equality, its sole effect is to discriminate against all unenfranchised dealers and grant and secure special privileges to those few who are enfranchised, and this is done without any resultant benefit or protection to the general public. * * * The classification made and the restrictions imposed foster and protect the commercial interests of the enfranchised dealers but the classification is unnatural and unreasonable and the restrictions are not in the interests of the public health, morals, safety or general welfare."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Hinesley · Killingsworth v. West Way Motors, Inc.

2. ““ ‘A law is “special in a constitutional sense when by force of an inherent limitation it arbitrarily separates some persons, places or things from those upon which, but for such separation, it would operate.” ’ ( 126 Va. 610 ) “Reasonably satisfactory as that definition is, we must still, in each instance, determine if the Act makes an ‘arbitrary separation’ of ‘persons, places or things.’ For as stated by Judge Kelly at p. 610 in Martin v. Commonwealth, supra, whether there has been such an ‘arbitrary separation * * * must in the nature of things depend upon the person [purpose] and subject of the particular act and the circumstances and conditions surrounding its passage.’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Standard Drug Co. v. General Electric Co. · Public Finance Corp. of Lynchburg v. Londeree

3. “"Its sole effect is to forbid to some the right to sell any or all new cars and by force of law grant that special right and valuable business privilege to a preferred few. And those select few are determined upon and limited to those to whom motor vehicle manufacturers * * * decide to award contract franchises. (The court quoted from the Nebraska opinion and said it was in accord with its holding) that the above-quoted portion of the Act which gave the exclusive right to sell new cars to enfranchised dealers was unconstitutional."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Hinesley