Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 209 Cal. 350 - Patrick v. Riley

Patrick v. Riley’s Empirical Analysis

1930

Citation profile

58
cited by 58 later decisions
5
states following
April 2011
most recently cited

58 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently April 2011 · most notably Jones v. City of Los Angeles (1930), People v. Honig (1996)

58 state decisions

160193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Gray v. Reclamation District No. 1500 · Matter of Application of Miller · Conlin v. Board of Supervisors · Veterans' Welfare Board v. Jordan · City of Oakland v. Garrison

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

  1. ““It is a well recognized principle that it is one of the first duties of a state to take all necessary steps for the promotion and protection of the health and comfort of its inhabitants. The preservation of the public health is universally conceded to be one of the duties devolving upon the state as a sovereignty and whatever reasonably tends to preserve the public health, is a subject upon which the legislature within its police power may take notice. . . . “That the act here in question (Bovine Tuberculosis Law) was enacted for a public purpose is beyond question, and being a law for the suppression of disease and the promotion of public health, it should be given a broad and liberal construction that it may accomplish the purpose intended in enacting it. . . . In construing such an act, the courts must presume that the legislature has carefully investigated and has properly determined that the interests of the public require legislation that will insure the public safety and the public health against threatened danger from diseased animals.. The determination of that fact is the province of the legislature, and not of the courts. It is also the province of the legislature, in the exercise of a sound discretion, to determine what measures are necessary for the protection of such interests.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.