Henning Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

259 federal appellate · 115 district · 621 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 1,525 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We must assume that, when the statute in question was passed, the legislature ... was not unaware of these opposing theories, and was compelled, of necessity, to choose between them. It was not compelled to commit a matter involving the public health and safety to the final decision of a court or jury. It is no part of the function of a court or a jury to determine which one of two modes was likely to be the most effective for the protection of the public against disease.”

   45 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Macintosh · Cruzan Ex Rel. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health

2. ““Before closing this opinion we deem it appropriate, in order to prevent misapprehension as to our views, to observe — perhaps to repeat a thought already sufficiently expressed, namely— that the police power of a state, whether exercised by the Legislature, or by a local body acting under its authority, may be exerted in such circumstances, or by regulations so arbitrary and oppressive in particular cases, as to justify the interference of the courts to prevent wrong and oppression. Extreme cases can be readily suggested. Ordinarily such cases are not safe guides in the administration of the law. It is easy, for instance, to suppose the case of an adult who is embraced by the mere words of the act, but yet to subject whom to vaccination in a particular condition of his health or body would be cruel and inhuman in the last degree. We are not to be understood as holding that the statute was intended to be applied to such a case, or, if it was so intended, that the judiciary would not be competent to interfere and protect the health and life of the individual concerned.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kraus v. Cleveland (City) · S.W. Ohio Basketball, Inc. v. Himes

3. ““* * If the defendant had been permitted to introduce such expert testimony as he had in support of these several propositions, it could not have changed the result. It would not have justified the court in holding that the legislature had transcended its power in enacting this statute on their judgment of what the welfare of the people demands. * * * According to settled principles the police power of a State must be held to embrace, at least, such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health and the public safety.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wright v. DeWitt School District · Gundaker Central Motors, Inc. v. Gassert