Truax v. Corrigan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

205 federal appellate · 78 district · 500 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 1,085 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The legislative power of a state can only be exerted in subordination to the fundamental principles of right and justice which the guaranty of due process in the Fourteenth Amendment is intended to preserve, and that a purely arbitrary or capricious exercise of that power whereby a wrongful and highly injurious invasion of property rights, as here, is practically sanctioned and the owner stripped of all real remedy, is wholly at variance with those principles.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. American Furniture Co. v. I. B. · 31 Ala. App. 121 - Lash v. State

2. ““We held that under these clauses [Sec. 6 and 20 of the Clayton Act] picketing was unlawful, and that it might be enjoined as such, and that peaceful picketing was a contradiction in terms which the statute sedulously avoided, but that subject to the primary right of the employer and his employees and would-be employees to free access to his premises without obstruction by violence, intimidation, annoyance, importunity, or dogging, it was lawful for ex-employees on a strike and their fellows in a labor union to have a single representative at each entrance to the plant of the employer to announce the strike and peaceably to persuade the employees and would-be employees to join them in it. We held that these clauses were merely declaratory of what had always been the law and ;the best practice in equity, and we thus applied them.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 24 F. Supp. 619 - Houston & North Texas Motor Freight Lines, Inc. v. Local Union No. 886 of International Brotherhood of Teamsters · 99 N.J. Eq. 770 - Gevas v. Greek Restaurant Workers' Club

3. “"* * * `Classification * * * must always rest upon some difference which bears a reasonable and just relation to the act in respect to which the classification is proposed, and can never be made arbitrarily and without any such basis. * * *.' It must therefore obtain in and determine legislation; but it must regard real resemblances and real differences between things and persons, and class them in accordance with their pertinence to the purpose in hand."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Terrace v. Thompson · Southwest Engineering Co. v. Ernst