State v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 district · 13 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Provisions from the State Law. Marking of Applicant upon Examination. Section 14 provides for the revoca- There is nothing in the system of tion of certificates for the conviction markings under this, except: “Clean- of crime, drunkenness, or having or liness—Poor O. Excellent 8.” imparting any contagious or infectious disease. Section 15 provides a penalty for There is nothing in the system of using or allowing towels to be used on marking under this, except: “Oleanlimore than one person before such ness—Poor O. Excellent 8.” “Conditowels have been laundered, or razors, tion of tools—Poor O. Excellent 8.” lather, or hair brushes on more than one person before the same have been sterilized. Section 10 provides that, before issuing a certificate of registration as a barber, the board shall be satisfied that the applicant is (1) Above the age of 18 years. There is nothing touching this in the regulations before the court. (2) Of good moral character. There is nothing touching this in the regulations before the court. (3) Free from contagious or in- There is nothing in the system of fectious disease. marking under this, except: “Cleanliness—Poor O. Excellent 8.” (4) Has studied the trade for two' This provision of the law was held years as an apprentice under or as a unconstitutional by the state court, qualified and practicing barber in this that court saying: “The Legislature state or other states. or the board of examiners, when authorized. so to do, may make and enforce reas”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Timmons v. Morris · Hoff v. State

2. ““We adhere to the rule and reasoning of that case. But there is a clear distinction between that case and this. The business of plumbing only remotely affects the public health. The skill or cleanliness of the plumber himself does not immediately affect the public, any more than the skill or cleanliness of the ordinary scavenger affects it, because the business of plumbing does not bring the plumber in personal contact with the public. But the physician, the surgeon, the dentist, and the barber operate directly upon the person, and therefore affect directly the health, comfort, and safety of the public. We think this marks the principal distinction between that class of trades, professions, or callings which may be regulated by law for public health, comfort, and safety, and that class which cannot be so regulated without depriving a citizen of his natural rights and privileges guaranteed him by fundamental law.” 48 Wash. 10 , 92 Pac. 776 , 15 Ann. Cas. 257.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Timmons v. Morris

3. ““Some of the acts considered in the above eases were manifestly needful and proper for the protection of the public health; others were on the border line.” 42 Wash. 242 , 84 Pac. 852 , 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 674 , 114 Am. St. Rep. 114 , 7 Ann. Cas. 577.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Timmons v. Morris