Moore v. Fowinkle’s Empirical Analysis
512 F.2d 629 · 1975
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently September 2012 · most notably Deja Vu of Nashville, Inc. v. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (2001), Chadha v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (1980)
15 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
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 Dandridge v. Williams · Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. · Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas · Lindsey v. Normet · Jefferson v. Hackney
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he unconstitutionality of a part of an Act does not necessarily defeat ... the validity of its remaining provisions. Unless it is evident that the legislature would not have enacted those provisions which are within its power, independently of that which is not, the invalid part may be dropped if what is left is fully operative as a law.' " The only circumstance in which this rule is not to be applied is where "the invalid provisions are deemed so essential, and are so interwoven with others, that it cannot reasonably be presumed that the legislature intended the statute to operate otherwise than as a whole.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If any provision of this Act or the application thereof is held invalid the remainder of this Act shall not be affected thereby.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is hereby declared that the sections, clauses, sentences and parts of the Tennessee Code are severable, are not matters of mutual essential inducement, and any of them shall be exscinded if the Code would otherwise be unconstitutional or ineffective. If any one or more sections, clauses, sentences or parts shall for any reason by questioned in any court, and shall be adjudged unconstitutional or invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair of invalidate the remaining provisions thereof, but shall be confined in its operation to the specific provision or provisions so held unconstitutional or invalid, and the inapplicability or invalidity of any section, clause, sentence or part in any one or more instances shall not be taken to affect or prejudice in any way its applicability or validity in any other instance.”
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.