Tiller v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

50 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The rule that a penal statute must be strictly construed does not prevent consideration by the courts of the general purpose and design of the legislature. Donnelly v. United States, 276 U. S. 505 , 48 S. Ct. 400 , 72 L. Ed. 676 . We have already noted that the statute herein involved relates to the public safety and to this extent it may be construed as remedial as well as penal and it is the judicial function to search for and follow the true legislative intent and adopt that sense of the words used which will attain the results anticipated by the legislature, being careful, however, not to enlarge by implication the obvious effect of the statute. Illinois C. R. Co. v. Hudson, 136 Tenn. 1 , 188 S. W. 589 , 2 A. L. R. 147.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 72 Wis. 2d 727 - State v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. · Turner v. Commonwealth

2. ““In construing a statute the cardinal rule of construction is that the intention of the legislature constitutes the law, and the primary object in the interpretation of a statute is to ascertain that intention.” And the Virginia court held that since the Virginia code, like the Pennsylvania code, section 903(g), provides that no two axles shall lie in the same vertical plane, nor shall the axle spacing be less than 40 inches from center to center, (in Pennsylvania, it is 36 inches), and went on to say: “The meaning of this sentence is clear and unambiguous. Any number of axles in the same vertical plane or any number of axles spaced less than forty inches [36 inches in Pennsylvania] apart is to be considered as a single axle in computing the gross weight transmitted to the road surface through such axles. Even if the defendant’s definition of ‘axle’ were adopted, the effect of the statute would be the same because the two axles, as defined by him, being in the same vertical plane would still be considered as one axle within the expressed language of the statute. We must conclude that the defendant’s position on this question is without merit.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Thurmond

3. “In construing a statute the cardinal rule of construction is that the intention of the legislature constitutes the law, and the primary object in the interpretation of a statute is to ascertain that intention. Anglin Joyner, 181 Va. 660 , 26 S.E.2d 58 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sellers v. Bles