State v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 38 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The power to declare a statute void is to be exercised with the utmost care, and after all doubts as to its constitutionality have been removed. So, it is the general rule that a statute on the books at any given time, not judicially declared unconstitutional or invalid, is presumed to be valid until the contrary clearly appears; he who raises the question of constitutionality must assume the burden of making the unconstitutionality clearly apL pear by establishing invalidating facts.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Struble v. Elkhart County Park & Recreation Board · Struble v. ELKHART CTY. PARK & RECREATION BD.

2. “It is also a fundamental proposition that the person attacking the constitutionality of a statute must have his rights adversely affected by the particular act and the particular section of the act which he is attacking. “As a general rule, the constitutionality of a statute or other governmental action is to be considered in the light of the standing of the party who seeks to raise the question and its particular application. It is a firmly established principle of law that the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance may not be attacked by one whose rights are not, or are not about to be, adversely affected by the operation of the statute. This rule applies to all cases both at law and in equity, and is equally applicable in both civil and criminal proceedings. One of the may variations of this rule is the principle that one may not urge the unconstitutionality of a statute who is not harmfully affected by the particular feature of the statute alleged to be in conflict with the constituí tion. A constitutional question may not be raised by one whose rights are not directly and certainly affected; or in a case where no attempt is being made to enforce the provision attacked. In other words, one may attack the constitutionality of a statute only when and as far as it is being, or is about to be, applied to his disadvantage; and to raise the question he must show that the alleged unconstitutional feature of the statute injures him and so operates as to deprive him of a cons”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 170 Ind. App. 422 - Terrel v. State