Damiano v. Burge’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[W]e adopt View # 2 as being the most compatible, of the three alternatives, with the power of an executive to pardon and the realities of life. As noted in the Damiano [v. Burge, 481 S.W.2d 562 (Mo.App.1972) ] opinion, such a result is consistent with the holding of this court in Hughes v. State Board of Health, [ 348 Mo. 1236 , 159 S.W.2d 277 (1942) ] supra, to the extent the instant question was considered in the latter case... ‘The intensive debate on this subject was initiated by the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Ex parte Garland, [71 U.S.] 4 Wall. 333 , 18 L.Ed. 366 [1866], which arose immediately following the Civil War. In that case, the petitioner was an attorney who had been enrolled to practice before the United States Supreme Court prior to the war. During the Civil War, his state seceded and he served in the Confederate Legislature. After the war, he obtained a presidential pardon for his participation in the war. However, Congress enacted a statute requiring all members of the Bar to take an oath that they had not participated in the rebellion. Petitioner, of course, was not in a position to honestly take that oath, and he filed suit to be permitted to practice notwithstanding. The United States Supreme Court held that the pardon completely wiped out the petitioner’s offense, and therefore, eliminated the necessity of the oath. In that connection, the court held as follows, 1.c. 380, 18 L.Ed. 366 : ‘ “ Such being the case, the inquiry arises as”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Abrams · State v. Bachman

2. “No person shall be granted a license hereunder unless such person is of good moral character . . . and no person shall be granted a license . . . who has been convicted, since the ratification of the twenty-first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, of a violation of the provisions of any law applicable to the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquor .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Guastello v. Department of Liquor Control