State v. Barrett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 1 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““All that it (the act) seems to have had in contemplation was the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors in certain cases, and the regulation of the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor in certain other cases. With regard to what should be done with the liquors, independently of their manufacture and sale, it was silent. The title to the act does not, in the slightest or most remote degree, refer to the use of the liquor in the abstract. So far as the title of the act is concerned, after the liquor has-been manufactured and sold, any person in the lawful and bona fide possession of it may use it as he sees fit; he may drink it, or burn it, or give it away, or he may use it in any other manner or for any other purpose to which his inclinations may lead him. The title to the act is wholly silent with reference to these matters. When the liquor is manufactured and sold, if manufactured and sold and purchased in good faith and according to law, the title to the act has then spent its force; it has then no further room for operation; its mission is then ended. When the sale is completed, it can have no further application to any transaction.” (p. 219. See, also, Harris v. Hardesty, 111 Kan. 291 , 207 Pac. 188 .)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. City of Iola v. Lederer · State v. Smith

2. ““Where an act contains two separate and independent subjects having no connection with each other, and the title to the act is broad enough to cover both, whether such an act or any portion of it has any validity has not yet been settled or determined by this court; but we think that probably and as a general rule it has not.” (p. 218.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. City of Wichita v. Lewis · Reilly v. Knapp

3. ““In order to correctly interpret that provision of section 16, art. 2, of the Constitution, * * * its object must be taken into consideration; and the provision must not be construed or enforced in any narrow or technical spirit but must be construed liberally on the one side so as to guard against the abuse intended to be prevented by it, and liberally on the other side so as not to embarrass or obstruct needed legislation. “ *, * * The title of an act may be as broad and comprehensive as the Legislature may choose to make it; or it may be as narrow and restricted as the Legislature may choose to make it. It may be so broad qnd comprehensive as to include innumerable minor subjects, provided all these minor subjects are capiable of being so combined and united as to form only one grand and comprehensive subject; or it may be so narrow and restricted as to include only the smallest and minutest subject. “And while the title to an act may include more than one subject, provided all can be so united and combined as to form only one single, entire, but more extended subject, yet neither the title to the act nor the act itself - can contain more than one subject, unless all the subjects which it. contains can. be so united and combined as to form only one single subject. “In construing- the title to an act, as well as the act itself, reference must be had to the object of the act, and to the evil sought to be remedied by it.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. American Linseed Oil Co. v. Crumbine