Purity Extract & Tonic Co. v. Lynch’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

44 federal appellate · 46 district · 216 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 508 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““* * * The statute establishes its own category. The question in this court is whether the legislature had power to establish it. The existence of this power, as the authorities we have cited abundantly demonstrate, is not to be denied simply because some innocent articles or transactions may be found within the proscribed class. The inquiry must be whether, considering the end in view, the statute passes the bounds of reason and assumes the character of a merely arbitrary fiat.””

   15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hebe Co. v. Shaw · Joshua Deshaney, a Minor, by His Guardian Ad Litem, and Melody Deshaney,s v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, et al.

2. ““The state,, within the limits we have stated, must decide upon the measures that are needful for the protection of its- people, and; having regard to the artifices which are used to promote the sale of intoxicants under the guise of innocent beverages, it would constitute an unwarranted departure from accepted principle to hold that the prohibition of the sale of all malt liquors, including the beverage in question, was beyond its reserved power.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc. · Hodgson v. Minnesota

3. ““ As already stated, the present ease must be governed by principles that do not involve the power of eminent domain, in the exercise of. which property may not be tajken for public use without compensation. A prohibition simply upon the use of property for purposes that are declared, by valid legislation, to be injurious to the health, morals, or safety of the community, cannot, in any just sense, be deemed a taking or an. appropriation of property for the public benefit. Such legislation does not disturb the owner in the control or use of his property for lawful purposes, nor restrict his right to dispose of it, but is only a declaration by the State that its use by any one, for certain forbidden purposes, is prejudicial to the public interests. Nor can legislation of that character come within the Fourteenth Amendment, in any case, unless it is apparent that its' real object is not to protect the community, or to promote the general well-being, but, under the guise of police regulation,, to deprive the owner of his liberty and property, without due process of law. The power which the States have of prohibiting such use. by individuals of their property as will be prejudicial to the health, the morals, or the safety of the public, is not — and, consistently with the existence and . safety of organized society, can not be — burdened with the condition that the State must compensate such individual owners for pecuniary losses they may sustain, by reason of their not being per”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Samuels v. McCurdy