State v. Hobson’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
1 district · 51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently September 2013 · most notably Gambone v. Commonwealth (1954), Monacelli v. Grimes (1953)
1 district · 51 state decisions — followed in 10 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Nebbia v. People of State of New York · Wolf v. People of the State of Colorado · Lovell v. City of Griffin · Thomas v. Collins · Munn v. Illinois
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The police power of the state, speaking broadly, comprehends the whole system of internal regulation. Under it the state seeks, not only to preserve public order, but also to establish between members of society standards of good manners and neighborliness which tend to prevent a conflict of rights. The power extends to such restraints and regulations as are reasonable and proper to protect the lives, health, comfort, and property of citizens, and to promote the order, morals, safety and welfare of society. Van Winkle v. State, 4 Boyce [578], 27 Del. 578 , 91 A. 385 , Ann.Cas.1916D, 104. Exact definition is impossible; there are limitations to the power and the significance to be given to the broad, general language of attempted definitions, is to be gathered from the facts of the particular case. Mayor, etc., of Wilmington v. Turk, 14 Del.Ch. 392 , 129 A. 512 . The power is always subject to express or implied constitutional prohibitions; but where not so restrained, the exercise of the power depends upon whether the situation presents a reasonable necessity for the protection of the public welfare, and whether the means adopted bear a reasonable relation to the end sought to be accomplished. Within these limits, the court will not assume to disturb the legislative action. State v. Grier, 4 Boyce 322 , 88 A. 579 . With the policy or wisdom of the act we have no concern. State v. Allmond, 2 Houst. 612 ."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““. . . the rule is that every presumption is in favor of the validity of a legislative act and all doubts are resolved in its favor. [Citations omitted.] And if the question of reasonable necessity for the regulation is ‘fairly debatable, the legislative judgment must be allowed to control.’ [Citation omitted.] The court is not required to find that a state of facts exists which justifies the legislation; it is sufficient if a state of facts may reasonably be conceived which would justify it.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Even if the Delaware statute, read literally, were susceptible of the construction which defendant urges, it would be our duty to reject that construction, since we are required, as between two possible constructions, to adopt the one which will uphold its validity.”); see also, e.g., R.M. v. V.H., 2006 WL 1389864 , at (Del.Fam.Ct. Jan. 19, 2006) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.