S. Buchsbaum & Co. v. Gordon’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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The rule that where two conflicting enactments are passed at the same session, the latest enactment in point of time will prevail, as well as all other rules of construction dealing with repeals by implication, are mere canons of construction. Such canons are only aids to the ascertainment of the legislative intent and must yield to such intent if the same be otherwise. They should never be followed to the extent of defeating or overriding the definite intent of the legislature. Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Franklin County, 387 Ill. 301 .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 342 Ill. App. 131 - Potosi Brewing Co. v. Metropolitan Distributing Co. · 16 Ohio St. 2d 16 - Henry v. Central National Bank

2. “"The provisions of any statute, so far as they are the same as those of any prior statute, must be construed as a continuation of such prior provisions and not as a new enactment. [Citation.] It is also the rule that when the legislature enacts an amendatory statute providing that a certain act shall be amended so as to read as repeated in the amendatory act, such portions of the old law as are repeated in the new act, either literally or substantially, are to be regarded as a continuation of the old law and not the enactment of a new law on that subject." S. Buchsbaum & Co. v. Gordon, 389 Ill. 493, 500-01 , 59 N.E.2d 832 (1945).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People v. Maldonado

3. “‘' The rule is that when two statutes pertaining to the same subject matter are passed at the same session of the legislature, they will both be upheld unless they are so antagonistic that both cannot operate. People ex rel. Gill v. Devine Realty Trust, 366 Ill. 418 ; People ex rel. Reynolds v. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Co. 295 Ill. 191 ; Hoyne v. Danisch, 264 Ill. 467 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 342 Ill. App. 131 - Potosi Brewing Co. v. Metropolitan Distributing Co.