McCarthy Ex Rel. McCarthy v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Having acknowledged that the statutory scheme at issue permits and enforces the assessment of property of the same class at different ratios in different counties, the Court must next consider whether there is any legitimate state object in making such distinctions. The distinctions drawn by the statute are geographical, since the rates at issue are applicable to seventeen different Alabama counties. Salsburg v. Maryland , 346 U.S. 545 , *Page 785 74 S.Ct. 280 , 98 L.Ed. 281 (1954), noted by the Weissinger court, makes it clear that distinctions based on geographical lines are not per se unconstitutional, but there must be some showing `that the classification is neither capricious nor arbitrary but rests upon some reasonable consideration of difference or policy.' Weissinger v. Boswell , 330 F. Supp. at 623 , citing State Board of Tax Commissioners of Indiana v. Jackson , 283 U.S. 527 , 537 , 51 S.Ct. 540 , 75 L.Ed. 1248 (1931). Although the Court has received diverse answers and motions for summary judgment or dismissal from almost every one of the thirty-four defendants, together with an amicus curiae brief from various state associations, no one has yet taken the position that there is a legitimate state object supporting the enforcement of section 40-8-1 . The Court is of the opinion that such a position could hardly be advanced under the state of the facts as presented. There is no rational pattern tying together the seventeen counties with decreased assessment ratios.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 375 So. 2d 780 - Thorn v. Jefferson County

2. “"The named Plaintiffs are seeking declaratory relief finding that Title 51, Section 17 of the Alabama Code of 1940 (now Section 40-8-1 of the Alabama Code of 1975) violates both the state and federal constitutions, and that Amendment 325(c) to the Alabama Constitution is violative of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 375 So. 2d 780 - Thorn v. Jefferson County

3. “"`Clearly there is no constitutional proscription against the adoption of different rates of taxation by the various local governmental units.' (emphasis added)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 375 So. 2d 780 - Thorn v. Jefferson County