United States v. Standard Brewery, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

80 federal appellate · 28 district · 57 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 260 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * These provisions are of plain import and are aimed only at intoxicating beverages. It is elementary that •all of the words used in a legislative .act are to be given force and meaning, [Washington] Market Co. v. Hoffman, 101 U.S. 112, 115 , 25 L.Ed. 782 [783]; ■and of course the qualifying words 'other intoxicating 5 in -this act cannot be rejected. It is not to be assumed that ■Congress had no purpose in inserting ■them or that it did so ¡without intending that they should be given due force .and effect. The government insists that the intention was to include beer .and wine whether intoxicating or not If so the use of this phraseology was •quite superfluous, and it would have 'been enough to have written the act without the qualifying words. “This court had occasion to deal ■with a question very similar in character in the case of the United States v. United Verde Copper Co., 196 U.S. 207 , 25 Sup.Ct. 222 , 49 L.Ed. 449 , where •an act permitted the use of timber on the public lands for building, agricultural, mining and other domestic purposes, and held that we could not disregard the use of the word 'other’ notwithstanding the contention that it should be eliminated from the statute in order to ascertain the true meaning. So here, we think it clear that the framers of the statute intentionally used the phrase ‘other intoxicating’ as relating to and defining the immediately ■preceding designation of beer and wine. ‘As a matter of ordinary construction, where severa”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brown v. Brown · Reisenauer v. State, Department of Transportation

2. “Nothing is better settled than that in the construction of a law its meaning must first be sought in the language employed. If that be plain, it is the duty of the courts to enforce the law as written, provided it be within the constitutional authority of the legislative body which passed it.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kananen v. Matthews · Oertel Co. v. Gregory

3. “That after June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and nineteen, until the conclusion of the present war, and thereafter until the termination of demobilization, the date of which shall be determined and proclaimed by the President of the United States, for the purpose of conserving the man power of the nation, and to increase efficiency in the production of arms, munitions, ships, food, and clothing for the army and navy, it shall be unlawful to sell for beverage purposes any distilled spirits, and during said time no distilled spirits held in bond shall be removed therefrom for beverage purposes except for export. After May first, nineteen hundred and nineteen, until the conclusion of the present war and thereafter until the termination of demobilization, the date of which shall be determined and proclaimed by the President of the United States, no grains, cereals, fruit, or other food product shall be used in the manufacture or production of beer, wine, or other intoxicating malt or vinous liquor for beverage purposes. After June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and nineteen, until the conclusion of the present war and thereafter until the termination of demobilization, the date of which shall be determined and proclaimed by the President of the United States, no beer, wine, or other intoxicating malt or vinous liquor shall be sold for beverage purposes except for export.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Reisenauer v. State, Department of Transportation