Patch Enterprises, Inc. v. McCall’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The basic test of substantive due process is whether the state can justify the infringement of its legislative activity upon personal rights and liberties. So long as the legislative activity does not encroach upon constitutional guarantees, or run afoul of federal statutory law, a state has a broad scope of discretion in which to regulate the conduct of its citizens... . It need only be shown that the challenged legislative activity is not arbitrary or unreasonable... . Courts will not be concerned with whether the particular legislation in question is the most prudent choice, or is a perfect panacea, to cure the ill or achieve the interest intended... . If there is a legitimate state interest which the legislation aims to effect, and if the legislation is a reasonably related means to achieve the intended end, it will be upheld... . Nevertheless, despite a state's wide discretion, and the cautious restraint of the courts, there remain basic restrictions and limits on a state's legislative power to intrude upon individual rights, liberties, and conduct. To exceed those bounds without rational justification is to collide with the Due Process Clause.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Sult v. State · 489 So. 2d 1125 - State v. Saiez

2. “It is an intrinsic power of state governments and their subdivisions, fortified by the federal Constitution's Twenty-first Amendment, to regulate the sale, distribution, importation, and use of alcohol intoxicants, so long as that regulation does not irrationally and invidiously discriminate. California v. LaRue , 409 U.S. 109 , 114 , 93 S.Ct. 390 , 395 , 34 L.Ed.2d 342 , 349-50 (1972); cf. Craig v. Boren , 429 U.S. at 204 -05 , 97 S.Ct. at 460 -61 , 50 L.Ed.2d at 411 , 413-14 , and 429 U.S. at 215 , 97 S.Ct. at 466 , 50 L.Ed.2d at 417-18 (Stewart, J., concurring in the judgment). There is, furthermore, no fundamental constitutional right of persons to sell or consume alcoholic beverages. Hence, the question presented by plaintiffs' equal protection challenge to the ordinance is whether its proscriptive and regulatory classification (1) has a legitimate governmental objective and (2) is a reasonable means to achieve that goal. Zablocki v. Redhail , 434 U.S. 374 , 400 , 401 , 98 S.Ct. 673 , 688 , 689 , 54 L.Ed.2d 618 , 639 , 640 (January 18, 1978) (Powell, J., concurring in the judgment); Craig v. Boren , 429 U.S. at 211 , 97 S.Ct. at 464 , 50 L.Ed.2d at 415 (Powell, J., concurring); Weber v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. , 406 U.S. 164 , 172 , 92 S.Ct. 1400 , 1405 , 31 L.Ed.2d 768 , 777 (1972); Levy v. Louisiana , 391 U.S. 68 , 71 , 88 S.Ct. 1509 , 1511 , 20 L.Ed.2d 436 , 439 (1968).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 407 So. 2d 115 - Jefferson County v. Braswell

3. “In enacting socio-economic, general welfare legislation, states and their subdivisions have a wide latitude of discretion to select implementing classifications____ The overall requirement of the Equal Protection Clause, however, is that the statutory line that draws distinctions and classifications is a rational one, bearing “some rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose.” Id. at 1079-1080 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Baltimore Lutheran High School Ass'n v. Employment Security Administration