Ex Parte Burks’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`Remedial statutes—those which do not create, enlarge, diminish, or destroy vested rights— are favored by the courts, and their retrospective operation is not obnoxious to the spirit and policy of the law.' Ex parte Burks, 487 So.2d 905, 907 (Ala.1985) (emphasis added) (quoting Barrington v. Barrington, 200 Ala. 315, 316 , 76 So. 81, 82 (1917)). Remedial statutes are exemplified by those that `"impair no contract or vested right, ... but preserve and enforce the right and heal defects in existing laws prescribing remedies."` Jones [v. Casey ] 445 So.2d [873,] 875 [Ala. (1983)] (quoting Dickson v. Alabama Mach. & Supply Co., 18 Ala.App. 164, 165 , 89 So. 843, 844 , cert. denied, 206 Ala. 698 , 89 So. 922 (1921))."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 814 So. 2d 258 - Auburn Med. Center, Inc. v. State Health Agency · 826 So. 2d 825 - Scw v. Cb

2. “impair no contract or vested right, . . . but preserve and enforce the right and heal defects in existing laws prescribing remedies.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 814 So. 2d 258 - Auburn Med. Center, Inc. v. State Health Agency · 792 So. 2d 373 - State Department of Revenue v. Calhoun

3. ““The amended statute at issue here does not expressly contain any provision for retroactive application, nor is there a clear legislative intent that the statute so operate. Therefore, the amended provision may operate retroactively only if it is found to be ‘remedial.’ “Remedial statutes are those relating to remedies or modes of procedure. Street v. City of Anniston, 381 So.2d 26 (Ala.1980); Harlan v. State, 31 Ala.App. 478 , 18 So.2d 744 (194[4]). In Jones v. Casey, [445 So.2d 873 (Ala.1983)], we reiterated the definition of ‘remedial statutes’ “ ‘... as those “which impair no contract or vested right, and do not disturb past transactions, but preserve and enforce the right and heal defects in existing laws prescribing remedies.” Dickson v. Alabama Mach, and Supply Co., 18 Ala.App. 164, 165 , 89 So. 843, 844 , cert. denied, 206 Ala. 698 , 89 So. 922 (1921).’ “445 So.2d at 875. “We believe that the amendment to Code 1975, § 36-26-27(a), is remedial in nature, touching upon matters of procedure rather than substantive rights, and corrects what may be perceived as a defect in the original statute. Moreover, no substantial right is impaired by the expanded remedies granted to the Personnel Board to be applied in reviewing disciplinary measures against state merit employees. This is not to say that substantial rights may not be affected by the application of the statutory change, but that this effect is only the result of the utilization of what is essen tially a matter of Pers”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Board of School Commissioners v. Christopher