56 Misc. 2d 388 - People v. Carmichael’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 22 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The legislature may enact laws prohibiting that which is harmful to the welfare of the people even though such interferes with the liberty of the individual, so long as it is reasonable. * * * While concededly the instant legislation may infringe on the rights of the individual, it is equally apparent that such is incidental to a valid exercise of the police power and is not unreasonable. * * * * * * Furthermore, while these regulations apply only to motorcyclists, it is not discriminatory and equal protection is accomplished when all of a same class are treated in a like manner.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Elliott v. City of Oklahoma City · State v. Betts

2. ““ ‘The number of accidents involving motorcycles is increasing rapidly. In fact, motorcycle accidents increased by 105% in 1965 as compared to 1964, while the total registration of these vehicles increased by 83%. Fatalities increased by 63.6% and personal injury accidents by 100%. A summary of the Department statistics indicates that 89.2% of the motorcycle accidents result in injury or death and that almost all fatalities occurring as a result of such accidents involve head injuries. Most of these fatalities could have been avoided, or the severity lessened, by the use of a proper helmet’. In recommending the proposed legislation, the department further related that such ‘ * * * should go far in protecting the drivers and passengers on motorcycles’ ”.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Coffman · 3 N.C. App. 124 - State v. Anderson

3. “"(O)n the factual situation . . . giving rise to the instant enactment, it is apparent that the challenged legislation requiring the wearing of a protective helmet for self-protection is a valid purpose of legislative action under the police power of the state. Indeed, the inherent danger of operating a motorcycle, not only to the driver but to other users of the highway, has likewise been considered in upholding the validity of this statute as a valid objective of the state’s police power (People v. Schmidt, 54 Misc. 2d 702 , 283 N.Y.S. 2d 290 ). “Given the existence of a proper purpose, it still remains that the means undertaken to accomplish it are reasonable and not oppressive or discriminatory. A determination of this issue depends upon existing circumstances, contemporaneous conditions, the object sought to be obtained and the necessity or lack thereof for the required legislation (Vernon Park Realty Inc. v. City of Mt. Vernon, 122 N.Y.S. 2d 78 , aff’d 282 App. Div. 890 , 125 N.Y.S. 2d 112 , aff’d 307 N.Y. 493 , 121 N.E. 2d 517 ). “Considering the nature of a motorcycle (the intrinsic vulnerability of the operator ¿nd speed attainable), together with the circumstances set forth in the departmental memorandum, it is apparent that motorcycles are readily distinguishable from other vehicles, and that the means employed in this legislation are reasonably appropriate to accomplish the desired purpose and are not unduly oppressive.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 3 N.C. App. 124 - State v. Anderson