Berlowitz v. Roach’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Appellants further argue that the uniform declaratory judgment statute cannot apply here for the reason that sec. 139.04 Stats, provides the exclusive procedure whereby any taxpayer may question his liability for the tax in issue. This section provides that no action shall be maintained in any court to restrain or delay the collection or payment of a tax levied under sec. 139.26, and then provides the taxpayer must pay the tax under protest and that he may then bring an action at law to recover the money so paid, provided it is brought within ninety days after the date of payment. If this is the exclusive remedy, it means that between thirteen and fourteen thousand taxpayers must pay the tax and bring separate actions to determine whether the officer acted within the law in enforcing the payment of the tax. Seeking a declaratory judgment does not delay the collection or payment of the tax as the officer in charge is in position to enforce its payment at all times while the action is pending. While it is true that no restraining order would lie during the pendency of the action, it does not- follow that the legislature intended this tO' be the exclusive remedy which a taxpayer has and that the declaratory judgment statute is not to apply. Sec. 139.04, Stats., prohibits actions that will re strain or delay the collection or payment of the tax. It also authorizes suit to be brought against the state in the event the taxpayer elects to follow the procedure provided. An action se”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Arneson v. Baker

2. ““This dearly grants to any party the right to proceed under the uniform dedaratory-judgment statute to have a statute construed with reference to a claimed right so long as it cannot be said to be an action against the state. It is argued that while the state is not named as a party defendant it is. the party in interest because the money realized from the collection of this tax is state property. We cannot agree with appellants’ position that this is an action against the state. It is an action against the enforcing officer to prevent him from doing that which it is claimed he has no legal right to do, and if respondent is correct in his position that the statute gives him no legal right to collect this tax the enforcing officer is then acting as an individual in excess of his authority and with no protection under the law. ...” 6”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 26 Wis. 2d 505 - Barry Laboratories, Inc. v. State Board of Pharmacy

3. “An unconstitutional act of the Legislature is not a law; it confers no rights, it imposes no penalties, it affords no protection, and is not operative; and in legal contemplation it has no existence.”

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