Harrison v. Day’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently November 2011 · most notably Mitchell v. NORTH CAROLINA INDUS. DEVELOP. FIN. AU. (1968), Fairfax County Industrial Development Authority v. Coyner (1966)
48 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 Visina v. Freeman · Admiral Realty Co. v. . City of New York · Marchant v. Mayor of Baltimore · Newberry v. City of Andalusia · Almond v. Day
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is not our function to decide whether it is a wise policy for the Authority to lease this facility rather than to operate it itself. Courts have nothing to do with the wisdom of legislation. The question for us is whether the legislature has the power to authorize the lease. We consider that question in the light of the well-settled principle that any reasonable doubt should be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of an Act of the legislature. Only when it is plainly in violation of the Constitution will the court so decide (citations omitted). On that basis and in view of our holding in the first Ports Authority case, we think it entirely clear that the legislature violated no constitutional provision in authorizing the Authority to lease the property. The holding in the former case that State appropriations in furtherance of the acquisition, development, and operation of the port facilities are for a public and not a private purpose answers in the negative the question of whether there is any violation of § 188 of the Constitution ....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[m]erely because the State incurs an indebtedness or expends its funds for its benefit and others may incidentally profit thereby does not bring the transaction within the letter or the spirit of the `credit clause' prohibition.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Neither the credit of the State, nor of any county, city or town, shall be, directly or indirectly, under any device or pretense whatsoever, granted to or in aid of any person, association or corporation, nor shall the State, or any county, city or town subscribe to or become interested in the stock or obligations of any company, association or corporation, for the purpose of aiding in the construction or maintenance of its work; nor shall the State become a party to or become interested in any work of internal improvement, except public roads and public parks, or engage in carrying on any such work; nor assume any indebtedness of any county, city or town, nor lend its credit to the same; * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Button v. Day
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.