55 Ill. 2d 430 - Rozner v. Korshak’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

49 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is the contention of the plaintiff, however, that the preexisting legislative limitations were reinstated by an amendment # # * which was approved by the vote of three fifths of the members of each house, and became a law after the effective date of the constitution of 1970. * # # While section 6(g) of article VII authorizes the General Assembly, by a law approved by three fifths of the members of each house, to deny or limit the power of a home-rule unit, it does not follow that every statute relating to the powers of municipalities generally will, if adopted by a three-fifths vote, have a bearing upon the powers of those municipalities which are home-rule units. The powers which those units have received under section 6 of article VII of the constitution of 1970 are in addition to the powers heretofore or hereafter granted to the General Assembly to other municipalities. The kind of inadvertent restriction of the authority of home-rule units for which the plaintiff contends can be avoided if statutes that are intended to limit or deny home-rule powers contain an express statement to that effect. The statute before us contains no indication of a restrictive purpose, and we hold that it had no restrictive effect.” (Emphasis supplied.)”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 79 Ill. App. 3d 1102 - Aurora Pizza Hut, Inc. v. Hayter · 28 Ill. App. 3d 279 - Liquor Control Commission v. City of Calumet City

2. ““* * * And for many years section 2 — 121 of the Illinois Vehicle Code, and its predecessors, had provided that the owner of a motor vehicle who had obtained a State vehicle license should not be required, by any municipality other than the one in which he resides, to pay a tax or license fee for the use of his vehicle. (See, e.g., Ill. Rev. Stat. 1963, ch. 95%, par. 32a; Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 95M, par. 2 — 121.) The limitations contained in these sections were, of course, superseded with respect to home-rule units by the adoption of the constitution of 1970.” ( 55 Ill. 2d 430, 434 , 303 N.E.2d 389, 391 .)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 56 Ill. App. 3d 52 - Village of Hoffman Estates v. Union Oil Co. of California

3. ““(a) *** Except as limited by this Section, a home rule unit may exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to its government and affairs including, but not limited to, the power *** to tax; ***. * * * (g) The General Assembly by a law approved by the vote of three-fifths of the members elected to each house may deny or limit the power to tax ***. (h) The General Assembly may provide specifically by law for the exclusive exercise by the State of any power or function of a home rule unit other than a taxing power ***.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 65 Ill. 2d 10 - Town of Cicero v. Fox Valley Trotting Club, Inc.