Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 220 S.C. 269 - State v. Patterson

State v. Patterson’s Empirical Analysis

1951

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
3
states following
March 1998
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 1998

12 state decisions

5019511960197019801990decided

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 Day v. DAY · McCollum v. Snipes · Kalber v. Redfearn

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

  1. ““There is a slight diversity of opinion as to the effect of a repealing act on so much of the repealed act as is ■ re-enacted in the former. In a few jurisdictions the rule has been laid down that the simultaneous repeal and re-enactment of a statute operate as a repeal and interruption of the former statute, and that rights and liabilities thereunder are not preserved and cannot be enforced. The prevailing view, however, is that where a statute is repealed and all, or some, of its provisions are at the same time re-enacted, the re-enactment is considered a reaffirmance of the old law, and a neutralization of the repeal, so that the provisions of the repealed act which are thus re-enacted continue in force without interruption, and all rights and liabilities incurred thereunder are preserved and may be enforced. ‡ * * it”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““When this is done and the entire enactment * * * is reviewed, it is evident that there was no intent to wipe clean the slates of those convicted during the effectiveness of the former statute. Rather, it is evident that merely a reaffirmance was intended and accomplished.” State v. Patterson, 1951, 220 S.C. 269 , 66 S.E.2d 875 , at page 876.”
    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.