Borchert v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 19 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “... The rule is stated in Cotham v. Coffman, 111 Ark. 108 , 163 S.W. 1183 (1914), quoting from Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations (6 ed.), in this language: ... Where therefore a part of the statute is unconstitutional, that fact does not authorize the courts to declare the remainder void also, unless all the provisions are connected in the subject matter, depending on each other, operating together for the same purpose, or otherwise so connected together in meaning that it cannot be presumed the Legislature would have passed the one without the other. ... If, when the unconstitutional portion is stricken out, that which remains is complete in itself, and capable of being executed in accordance with apparent legislative intent, wholly independent of that which was rejected, it must be sustained. ...”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Borchert v. Scott · Swafford v. Tyson Foods, Inc.

2. “SECTION 6. All revenues derived from the tax levied by this Act shall be paid over to the Commissioner of Revenues and shall be deposited in one or more banks selected by him * * * for use for the following purposes; (a) An amount not exceeding three per cent (3%) of such deposits for payment of the expenses of the Commissioner of Revenues in administering the provisions of this Act, including the costs of designing and printing the documentary stamps, the preparation and printing of information material and of any regulations which he may promulgate with respect to the use of such stamps and their safekeeping, and for reimbursing the State Treasury for any such expenses of administration hereunder which were paid by the use of State-appropriated funds. (b) The remainder thereof, but not less than ninety-seven per cent (97%) shall be deposited by the Commissioner of Revenues as follows: (1) Twenty per cent (20%) shall be deposited by the Commissioner of Revenues in the State Treasury and credited to the County Aid Fund and distributed at the end of each month to the respective counties from which the revenues originated. (2) Forty per cent (40%) thereof to the Arkansas Children’s Colony Board (the “Colony Board”) * * * to operate, maintain, develop and improve institutional and community facilities and services for the mentally retarded * * * (3) Forty per cent (40%) thereof to the State Parks, Recreation and Travel Commission of the State of Arkansas (the "Commission”) * * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Borchert v. Scott

3. “I “The issuance of bonds provided for in Act 239 without prior approval of the electors of the state violates Article 16, Section 1, as amended by Amendment No. 13, of the Arkansas Constitution and Amendment No. 20 to the Arkansas Constitution. II The pledge of revenues provided for in Act 239 violates Article 5, Section 29, and Article 16, Section 12, of the Arkansas Constitution. III The tax imposed by Act 239 violates Article 16, Section 5, and Article 16, Section 6, of the Arkansas Constitution. IV The tax imposed by Act 239 is unequal, arbitrary and discriminatory and,- therefore, in violation of Article 2, Section 18, of the Arkansas Constitution. V The tax imposed by Act 239 is an ad valorem tax levied upon property by the State and, therefore, violates Amendment No. 47 to the Arkansas Constitution. VI Act 239 does not authorize the appellee members of the State Parks, Recreation & Travel Commission of the State of Arkansas to issue revenue bonds and to pledge to the payment of those revenue bonds revenues derived from the tax imposed by Act 239.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Borchert v. Scott