State v. Spurlock’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'The essence of the theory of equal protection of the laws is that all similarly situated are treated alike.' City of Birmingham v. Stacy Williams Co., Inc. , 356 So.2d 608 , 611 (Ala. 1978). . . . Equal protection of the laws does not *Page 1365 compel uniformity in the face of difference. Hadnott v. City of Prattville , 309 F. Supp. 967 (N.D. Ala. 1970). The Equal Protection Clause does not mean that a state may not draw lines that treat one class of individuals differently from the others. The test is whether the difference in treatment is an invidious discrimination. Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co. , 410 U.S. 356 , 93 S.Ct. 1001 , 35 L.Ed.2d 351 (1973). Classification of subjects in a statute is not arbitrary and invalid if based on some difference which bears a reasonable and just relation to the attempted classification. Board of Com'rs of City of Mobile v. Orr , 181 Ala. 308 , 61 So. 920 (1913).”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Webb v. State · 710 So. 2d 1362 - May v. State

2. “"`The general rule is that "[e]qual protection of the laws is not denied by a statute prescribing the punishment to be inflicted on a person convicted of crime, unless it prescribes different punishments for the same acts committed under the same circumstances by persons in like situations." 16A C.J.S. Constitutional Law, Section 564. "[T]he legislature may, without violating the equal protection clause, establish different punishments ... or it may provide a special punishment for a special class of offenders." Section 564.'"”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. R.T.M. v. State · Webb v. State

3. “"Alabama adopted the substance of the major provisions of the Uniform Act. . . . This section was an addition to the Uniform Act. In making it a part of Alabama's `uniform act,' the legislature had the opportunity to conform it to the language of the various penal provisions within the Uniform Act. This omission, when considered in the context of the entire act, makes it clear that it was the intention of the legislature not to include any element of intent, willfulness or knowledge. . . . Since the intent of the legislature is clear, this Court cannot declare it otherwise."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 429 So. 2d 1121 - McCrary v. State