Montgomery v. Daniels’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 federal appellate · 9 district · 44 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 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]rial by jury in all cases in which it has heretofore been guaranteed by constitutional provision shall remain inviolate forever”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. MOTOR VEHICLE MFRS. v. State · 426 F. Supp. 1030 - Country-Wide Ins. Co. v. Harnett

2. “are overdue if not paid within thirty days after the claimant supplies proof of the fact and amount of loss sustained”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 580 So. 2d 190 - Levy v. Travelers Ins. Co. · 678 So. 2d 818 - State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lee

3. ““In Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 134 , 24 L.Ed. 77 , the court had been unequivocal in its statement that: ‘A person has no property, no vested interest, in any rule of the common law. That is only one of the forms of municipal law, and is no more sacred than any other. Rights of property which have been created by the common law cannot be taken away without due process; but the law itself, as a rule of conduct, may be changed at the will, or even at the whim, of the legislature, unless prevented by constitutional limitations. Indeed the great office of statutes is to remedy defects in the common law as they are developed and to adapt it to the changes of time and circumstances.’ In Arizona Employers Liab. Cases, 250 U.S. 400, 421 , 39 S.Ct. 553, 556 , 63 L.Ed. 1058 the court later repeated those principles in the following language: ‘But [common-law taught rules] are no more than rules of law, deduced by the courts as reasonable and just, under the conditions of our civilization * * *. They are not placed, by the Fourteenth Amendment, beyond the reach of the state’s power to alter them, as rules of future conduct and tests of responsibility, through legislation designed to promote the general welfare’. Finally, in Silver v. Silver, 280 U.S. 117, 122 , 50 S.Ct. 57, 58 , 74 L.Ed. 221 [1929], the court in a further dictum appeared totally to have undercut its earlier dictum in the White case by citing ‘the rule that the Constitution does not forbid the creation of new rights,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jones v. State Board of Medicine