Mayhew v. Wilder’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 20 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Article II, Section 2 of our Constitution prohibits a person belonging to one of the three great departments of government from exercising the powers dele gated to another department, except as the Constitution itself directs or permits. The courts may, of course, hold an act of the Legislature unconstitutional, Town of South Carthage v. Barrett, 840 S.W.2d 895 (Tenn.1992), and in certain limited cases the courts may provide a remedy where the action (or inaction) of the executive or legislative branches deprive the people of their constitutional rights. In Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 , 82 S.Ct. 691 , 7 L.Ed.2d 668 (1962), the United States Supreme Court held that the Tennessee Legislature’s refusal to re-apportion the state’s legislative districts violated the equal protection provisions of the United States Constitution. In Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 , 89 S.Ct. 1944 , 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969), the same court held that the House of Representatives could not exclude a member who had been duly elected and possessed all the requirements of membership expressly prescribed in the Constitution. However, these incursions are rare. Where the question presented and the relief sought are of the type that do not admit of judicial resolution, or if the issue presented is a purely “political question,” the separation of powers provisions of our constitutions make it non-justiciable. Id. at 516, 517 , 89 S.Ct. 1944 . In Baker v. Carr [ 369 U.S. at 217 , 82 S.Ct. 691 ], the court discu”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bredesen v. Tennessee Judicial Selection Commission

2. “[Ujnder the Sunshine Law ... the Legislature allowed “any citizen of this state” to bring suit to obtain “injunctions, impose penalties, and otherwise enforce the purposes of.... [the Sunshine Law].” Tenn.Code Ann. § 8-44-106(a). “When a person is expressly authorized by statute or rule to bring a particular action, his or her right of action arises directly out of the statute, and he or she needs no title under the substantive law to authorize suit.” 59 Am.Jur.2d Parties § 22 (1987). [[Image here]] [In] Zseltvay v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, 986 S.W.2d 581 (Tenn.Ct.App.1998) ... we held that the plaintiff, as a citizen of the state, had standing to assert that the Board of Parks and Recreation had violated the Open Meetings Act. We said, “[w]e agree with the appellant that strict compliance with the Act is a necessity if it is to be effective....” [Id.] at 585. Our decision in Zseltvay was an affirmation of our earlier decision in MARTA v. Metro. Gov’t.... We believe that where the statute says “any citizen” may bring suit to enforce the Sunshine Law, the General Assembly must be taken at its word.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bob Fannon, Individually and as a City Councilman for the City of LaFollette v. City of LaFollotte

3. “members of any public body which consists of two (2) or more members, with the authority to make decisions for or recommendations to a public body on policy or administration....” Tenn.Code Ann. § 8-44-102(b)(1)(A).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bob Fannon, Individually and as a City Councilman for the City of LaFollette v. City of LaFollotte