Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 39 DEL 460 - Collison v. State

Collison v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1938

Citation profile

68
cited by 68 later decisions
7
states following
December 2017
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 65 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably Buxton v. Ullman (1959), International Insurance v. Johns (1989)

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 65 state decisions

260193819401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Fletcher v. Peck · Cantor v. Sachs · Williams v. Schwarz · Commonwealth ex rel. Wolfe v. Butler · Clendaniel v. Conrad

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

  1. ““ * * * it is the province of the legislature and not of the courts to pass upon matters of policy. The legislative hand is free except as the constitution restrains ; and courts are bound by a most solemn sense of responsibility to sustain the legislative will in the appropriate field of its exercise, even though in the opinion of the judges as individuals the legislature had acted in an unwise manner.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““* * * As a corollary of the proposition that the legislative power is never to be supposed to intend to violate the constitutional restraints which are laid upon it, it is the universal rule that judges are under a duty, out of respect to a department of the government which is coordinate with the one they administer, to strive as hard as reason and conscience will permit, to select between two possible interpretations of a statute that one which will bring the statute in harmony with the fundamental law of the constitution and reject that one which will result in its destruction. The courts of this State have frequently declared themselves to be bound by that duty. * * *””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he intention of the legislature as shown by the removal clause was that members of the Board should hold office for six years unless sooner removed by the Governor, or, putting the thought in another and clearer way, that they should hold their offices during the pleasure of the Governor but in no event longer than six years [.] The difference between saying “for six years, but the Governor may remove” and “during the pleasure of the Governor but for not longer than six years,” is a difference only in manner of expressing the same fundamental thought which is that the term shall be an indeterminate and indefinite one not exceeding in any event the period of six years.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.