241 Mo. App. 254 - Tabor v. Ford’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The leading and often cited case of Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657 , 13 S.Ct. 224, 227 , 36 L.Ed. 1123 states: ‘Penal laws, strictly and properly, are those imposing punishment for an offense committed against the state, and which, by the English and American constitutions, the executive of the state has the power to pardon. Statutes giving a private action against the wrongdoer are sometimes spoken of as penal in their nature, but in such cases it has been pointed out that neither the liability imposed nor the remedy given are strictly penal.’ “In Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works v. City of Atlanta, 203 U.S. 390 , 27 S.Ct. 65, 66 , 51 L.Ed. 241 , the court holds that an action for treble damages under an anti-trust act is not a suit for a penalty, that: ‘The construction of the phrase “suit for a penalty,” and the reasons for that construction, have been stated so fully by this court that it is not necessary to repeat them.’ Citing Huntington v. Attrill, supra. “In James-Dickinson Farm Mortgage Company v. Harry, 273 U.S. 119 , 47 S.Ct. 308 , 71 L.Ed 569, the court speaking through Mr. Justice Brandéis, and relying upon the Huntington case, supra, held that a statute of the State of Texas, allowing exemplary damages to the extent of double the actual damages (for false representations) was not a penal law, and that recovery thereunder might be had in the courts of another state.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Landum v. Livingston