238 Mo. App. 939 - State v. Malone’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““* * * There is no contention that Section 4742 has been specifically repealed. If Section 4742 has not been repealed the information is sufficient and the motion to quash it should have been overruled. * * * “Repeal of statutes by implication is not favored. State ex rel. St. Louis Police Relief Ass’n v. Igoe, 340 Mo. 1166 , 107 S.W.2d 929 ; Graves v. Little Tarkio Drainage Dist. No. 1, 345 Mo. 557 , 134 S.W.2d 70 ; Coleman v. Kansas City, 348 Mo. 916 , 156 S.W.2d 644 ; Lajoie v. Central West Casualty Co. of Detroit, 228 Mo.App. 701 , 71 S.W.2d 803 . “The repeal of a statute by a subsequent statute is a question of intention, and there is a presumption against the intention to repeal where express terms are not used. State ex rel. St. Louis Police Relief Ass’n v. Igoe, supra. “If by any fair interpretation all the sections of the statutes can stand together, there is no repeal by implication. Hull v. Baumann, 345 Mo. 159 , 131 S.W.2d 721 . “An act may be repealed by necessary implication, if a later act is so repugnant to the former that the two cannot stand, even though no mention is made of the for mer act in the later. Vining v. Probst [ 239 Mo.App. 157 ], 186 S.W.2d 611 . “But though two acts are seemingly repugnant they must, if possible, be so construed that the later will not operate as a repeal, by implication, of an earlier one and if they are not irreconcilably inconsistent, both must stand. Graves v. Little Tarkio Drainage District No. 1, supra. “The repugnancy be”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Halliburton

2. ““Section 4742 does not condemn the sale of fermented liquors because they contain or do not contain alcohol, or because they are intoxicating or nonintoxicating. It is the sale on Sunday that is condemned, because that day is designated by statute as a day of rest. * * * “In 1935, 110 years after the enactment of Section 4742, the legislature, without mentioning that section, enacted legislation relating to ‘nonintoxicating beer.’ Art. 2, Chap. 32, R.S.Mo.Ann.1939 [Section 312.020 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S.]. Clearly the purpose of this enactment was to control by licensing, and otherwise, those who deal in this commodity at all hours on all days, and incidentally, to raise some revenue. It was as effective on Monday as on Sunday. It has nothing to do with a day of rest. It declares that beer having an alcoholic content of not less than one-half of one percent by volume, nor exceeding 3.2 percent by weight is nonintoxicating beer, and may be lawfully manufactured and sold by a holder of a permit or. license. See Secs. 4952, 4952a and 4953 [Sections 312.030, 312.040, 312.110, 312.450, RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S.]. But a license does not permit one to sell on Sunday. State v. Ambs, 20 Mo. 214 . Lambert v. State, 8 Mo. 492, 493 . The privileges secured by a license do not include the right to disregard any valid existing law. 33 Corpus Juris, Page 534, § 93. Section 4950 states that the permit to sell nonintoxicating beer is subject to ‘such regulations as may be provided by law, * * The ordin”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Halliburton

3. ““* * * We feel compelled to say, however, that we do not agree with the view that the State ‘nonintoxicating beer’ law, Article 2, Chapter 32, supra, had no effect upon Section 4742, supra, the general ‘Sunday’ law of the State. “A careful consideration of Section 4950, supra [Section 312.020 RSMo 1949, V.A. M.S.], dealing with ‘nonintoxicating beer,’ shows that said section, after providing that beer having an alcoholic content of not less than one-half of one per cent by volume nor exceeding 3.2 per cent by weight is declared to be nonintoxicating beer and ‘may be lawfully manufactured and sold,’ etc., further provides, in the latter part thereof, ‘and such manufacture, sale, transportation, and consumption, shall be exempt from the provisions of chapter 31, Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1929; and exempt, also, from any of the provisions of said chapter and of any other law of this state in conflict with the provisions of this article.’ ” (Emphasis ours.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Halliburton