Schneider v. Pullen’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 72 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently May 2013 · most notably Pressman v. State Tax Commission (1985), Insurance Commissioner v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States (1995)
3 federal appellate · 72 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Commissioners of Cambridge v. Eastern Shore Public Service Co. · Kracke v. Weinberg · Tighe v. Osborne · Kahl v. Consolidated Gas, Electric Light & Power Co. · Clauss v. Board of Education
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"We have, however, been careful to point out that where constitutional questions are involved, the litigant has the right to raise them in a court of equity, and such court has the right to consider them. That is true whether the question is raised in an ordinary suit for injunction, or in a bill for a declaratory decree. Kahl v. Cons. Gas Co., 191 Md. 249, 258 , 60 A.2d 754 ; Commissioners of Cambridge v. Eastern Shore Public Service Co., [supra ]; Francis v. MacGill, 196 Md. 77 , 75 A.2d 91 ; Kracke v. Weinberg, 197 Md. 339 , 79 A.2d 387 . Appellant has a special interest in bringing this proceeding because he is engaged in the business of operating a trade school, and therefore must, under the terms of the statute, obtain a permit. He does not have to apply for this permit, and then, if it is refused, take the various appeals outlined in the statute, in order to raise the constitutional question of the validity of the act as a whole. That has been raised by a proceeding in equity in many cases. Gordon v. Montgomery County, 164 Md. 210 , 164 A. 676 ; Kracke v. Weinberg, supra . The appellant had the undoubted right to raise the questions he does as to the constitutionality of the statute by means of the bill in equity he filed." (italics supplied).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"In the case before us, the appellant also attempts to attack the rules and regulations proposed by the State Superintendent of Schools, which he files as exhibits. We do not think, however, these regulations can be considered in such a proceeding as this. The appellant does not allege that he has applied for a permit, or that he could not obtain a permit under these regulations, or that he could not comply with them. He has his remedy if he cannot obtain a permit under them by taking the appeals already outlined, and in such appeals he can raise the question of the unreasonableness or arbitrary nature of these rules, or any of them. And, when he is given notice of the passage of such regulations, he is entitled to a hearing before the State Superintendent of Schools, and before the State Board of Education. (Subsection (d)). In such hearings, he has ample opportunity to raise any objections he may have to the validity or the necessity of the regulations proposed. With respect to these regulations, as distinguished from the act itself, he is obligated to adopt the statutory procedure outlined, and cannot by-pass it." (emphasis supplied).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“To cover all types of trade schools, as well as other educational institutions, there could be no one set of standards prescribed, but that need not invalidate the delegation of power if the general standards, broad though they may be, are sufficiently explicit to limit the State Superintendent of Schools in his actions, and not permit him to exercise arbitrary power. The wording, already quoted, from subsection (b) is that the schools must have conditions of entrance, scholarship, educational qualifications, standards and facilities adequate and appropriate for the purposes, program, training and .courses to be taught. We think the standards prescribed for so broad a subject are sufficiently definite for us to hold that the statute is not subject to constitutional objection on this ground.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.