Watson v. Norris’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]t seems to be the doctrine of the heavy preponderance of the decisions, both state and federal, that where a complainant attacks the constitutionality or reasonableness of specific provisions of a zoning ordinance as it applies to a particular property, he must exhaust the available administrative remedies before resorting to court action. For a full analysis of the above doctrine, together with the authorities in support thereof, we refer interested parties to Metzenbaum, Law of Zoning, 2nd Ed., Vol. 1, Chapter IX-e (1) and (2). See also Davis, Administrative Law Text, Chapter 20.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cuz, Inc. v. Walden · City of Gadsden v. Entrekin

2. “"(1) . . . hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative official in the enforcement of this article or of any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto; (2) . . . hear and decide special exceptions to the terms of the ordinance upon which such *Page 905 board is required to pass under such ordinance; and (3) . . . authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variance from the terms of the ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest, where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship and so that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 595 So. 2d 903 - Beaird v. City of Hokes Bluff

3. ““It would appear that another well settled principle of law as it pertains to mandamus would also necessitate an affirmance of the action of the Chancellor in sustaining the demurrer to the petition. This principle is that mandamus lies only when there is no other adequate remedy. See Ala.Dig., Vol. 14, Mandamus, <®=’3(1), for innumerable citations of authorities. In the present case the appellants had an adequate remedy to review the decision of the Zoning Administrator by way of appeal to the Board of Zoning Adjustment, unless we assume, without any basis therefor, that the Board would not properly . perform the duties cast upon it.” ( 283 Ala. at 384 , 217 So.2d at 249 )”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cuz, Inc. v. Walden