443 So. 2d 253 - Fine v. Firestone’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1. The 1972 amendment enlarged the right to amend or revise the constitution by initiative. 2. The burden is on a challenger to establish that the initiative proposal is clearly and conclusively defective. 3. The one subject limitation places a functional, as opposed to a locational, restraint on the range of authorized amendments. 4. The wisdom of the proposed initiative is not a matter for judicial review. 5. The one subject limitation should be viewed broadly rather than narrowly. 6. A parallel should be drawn between the one subject restraints placed on the citizens' initiative process and the legislative enactment of laws process. More specifically, the judicial gloss placed on legislative enactments which permit widely divergent rights and requirements in statutes covering a single subject are applicable to citizen-initiative amendments or revisions. 7. The quality of the initiative draftmanship is not a matter for judicial review. 8. The substantial effect of the initiative proposal upon any other section or article of the constitution is irrelevant. 9. Conflicts between the initiative and existing articles of the constitution afford no logical basis for invalidating an initiative proposal. 10. When the newly-adopted amendment or revision conflicts with preexisting constitutional provisions, the newly-adopted provisions necessarily supersede the previous provisions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 448 So. 2d 984 - Fine v. Firestone

2. “the proposed amendment in this case contains various elements within the ambit of the single subject of revenue limitation, and that petitioner has not established that the proposal is `clearly and conclusively defective' within the purview of Article XI, Section 3, Florida Constitution.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 448 So. 2d 984 - Fine v. Firestone

3. “ad valorem taxes, other taxes and all other receipts.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 448 So. 2d 984 - Fine v. Firestone