In re Rebman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. ““ Whereas it is believed that unwholesome meats are being offered for sale in this Commonwealth; therefore, “1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Yirginia, That it shall not be lawful to offer for sale, within the limits of this State, any fresh meats (beef, veal, or mutton)-which shall -have been slaughtered one'hundred miles or over from the place at which it is offered for sale, until and except it has been inspected and approved as hereinafter provided. “ 2. The county court of each county and the corporation court of each city of this State shall, in their respective counties and cities, appoint one or more inspectors of fresh meats on the petition of not less than twenty citizens; and it shall be the duty of said inspectors to inspect and approve or condemn all fresh meat offered for sale in this State which has been transported one hundred miles or more from the place at which it was slaughtered. “ 3. And for all fresh meat so inspected said inspector shall receive as his compensation one cent per pound, to be paid by the owner of the meat. “ 4. It shall be the duty of any and all persons, firms or corporations, before offering for sale in this State, fresh meats, which under.the provisions of this act are required to be inspected, to apply to the fresh meat inspector of the county or city where the same- is proposed to be sold and have said meat inspected; and for a failure so to do, or for offering to sell any fresh meats condemned by said inspector, the perso”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brimmer v. Rebman

2. ““It is undeniable that a state of this Union, like other self-governing states, has the power to enact health laws for the public safety. It has as clear a right to this power as it has to existence. It may énact and enforce health laws adapted to secure the public safety, even though they trench upon, and more or less obstruct, the freedom of trade between the states. It is equally true, however, that health laws, to be within the sovereign prerogative of the state, and to stand superior to the cardinal ijrovisions of the national constitution, must be essentially and really such, in character, purpose, and operation. To call a law a health law does not make it one, competent to override any tenet of constitutional law. It must be a health law in spirit and in truth. It must be a reasonable law, properly devised for preventing the evil at which it is aimed; so devised as to no more than effectuate that purpose, and as not to subserve other objects not essential to the public safety. When health laws are abused for the latter ends, and thereby affect trade between the states obstructively or injuriously, it is competent for the national courts — it is declared to be our solemn duty — to pronounce them invalid, and to forbid their enforcement. And so it seems to mo that the question at bar is resolved into-the inquiry, whether or not the meat law of Virginia is reasonable and necessary, is directed against a dangerous evil, has an eye single to the prevention of that evil, and”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex parte Scott