Citizens' Telephone Co. v. Fuller’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 15 district · 81 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 185 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Granting the power of classification, we must grant government the right to select the differences upon which the classification shall be based, and they need not be great or conspicuous. Keeney v. (Comptroller of) New York, 222 U. S. 536 , 56 L. Ed. 305 , 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1139, 32 S. Ct. 105 . The state is not bound by any rigid equality. This is the rule; its limitation is that it must not be exercised in ‘ clear and hostile discriminations between particular persons and classes. ’ See Quong (Wing) v. Kirkendall, 223 U. S. 59, 62, 63 , 56 L. Ed. 350 -352, 32 S. Ct. 192 . Thus defined and thus limited, it is a vital principle, giving to government freedom to meet its exigencies, not binding its action by rigid formulas, but apportioning its burdens, and permitting it to make those ‘ discriminations which the best interests of society required.’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Klein v. Jefferson County Board of Tax Supervisors · Apartment Operators Assn. v. City of Minneapolis

2. “"This being the insistence of appellant, that is, that the tax is on property simply, appellant makes the property, dollar for dollar, the only basis of comparison between the taxed companies and the exempt companies, and asserts illegal discrimination. In other words, treating the tax as one on property, and this being the purpose of the statute, ‘each dollar’s worth should be treated alike;’ and it is contended, if each dollar’s worth is not treated alike, there is an arbitrary classification and hence an illegal classification, because it has no proper relation to the legislative purpose.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Union Steam Pump Sales Co. v. Secretary of State

3. ““It may therefore be said that in taxation there is a broader power of classification than in some other exercises of legislation. There is certainly as great a power, and the rule appellant urges cannot be adopted. It is inconsistent with the principle of classification and the cases which have explained the principle and the range of its legal exercise.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sovereign Camp, W. O. W. v. Casados