State Ex Rel. Stephan v. Parrish’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 36 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘It is fundamental that our state constitution limits rather than confers powers. Where the constitutionality of a statute is involved, the question presented is, therefore, not whether the act is authorized by the constitution, but whether it is prohibited thereby. [Citations omitted.] “ ‘The constitutionality of a statute is presumed, all doubts must be resolved in favor of its validity, and before the statute may be stricken down, it must clearly appear the statute violates the constitution. [Citations omitted.] “ ‘In determining constitutionality, it is the court’s duty to uphold a statute under attack rather than defeat it and if there is any reasonable way to construe the statute as constitutionally valid, that should be done. [Citations omitted.] “ ‘Statutes are not stricken down unless the infringement of the superior law is clear beyond substantial doubt. [Citations omitted.] “ ‘Courts do not strike down legislative enactments on the mere ground they fail to conform with a strictly legalistic definition o[r] technically correct interpretation of constitutional provisions. The test is rather whether the legislation conforms with the common understanding of the masses at the time they adopted such provisions and the presumption is in favor of the natural and popular meaning in which the words were understood by the adopters. [Citations omitted.] “ ‘The propriety, wisdom, necessity and expedience of legislation are exclusively matters for legislative determination and”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State Ex Rel. Tomasic v. UNIFIED GOV. OF WYANDOTTE COUNTY/KANSAS CITY · State Ex Rel. Tomasic v. Unified Gov't of Wyandotte County/Kansas City

2. ““[T]he determination of the constitutionality of §14 is one of equal protection and fundamental fairness as required by the Kansas Constitution. Section 14 is an unreasonable grant of a tax amnesty or ‘window of opportunity’ based solely on a characteristic or status of the taxpayer rather than upon appropriate classification of the property. Taxpayers are divided into two classes, those who honestly reported their property for taxation or those who, for whatever reason, did not report their property for taxation or underreported the property if returned. The latter group are granted freedom from taxation and statutory penalties, while the former group is not. Such discrimination, when judged against the taxation guidelines, is arbitrary and lacks the rational basis necessary to be constitutional.” 257 Kan. at 311.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re the Appeal of Garden City Medical Clinic · City of Indianapolis v. Armour

3. ““ ‘We have consistently held that where public property is not involved, a tax exemption must be based upon the use of the property and not on the basis of ownership alone. The reason lor the rule is that a classification of private property for tax purposes based solely upon owners unlawfully discriminates against one citizen in favor of another and therefore is a denial of equal protection of the law.' ” 257 Kan. at 303 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Tax Exemption Application of Central Illinois Public Services Co.