Hughes v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The United States Supreme Court has held on numerous occasions that the wild animals and fish within a state's border are, so far as capable of ownership, owned by the state in its sovereign capacity for the common benefit of all its people. Because of such ownership, and in the exercise of its police power, the state may regulate and control the taking, subsequent use and property rights that may be acquired therein. Lacoste v. Department of Conservation , 263 U.S. 545 , 44 S.Ct. 186, 68 L.Ed. 437 (1928); Geer v. State of Connecticut , 161 U.S. 519 , 16 S.Ct. 600, 40 L.Ed. 793 (1896) . . . . As stated in Lacoste, supra , protection of the wildlife of a state is peculiarly within the police power of the state, and the state has great latitude in determining what means are appropriate for its protection. 4 " . . . Oklahoma law does not prohibit commercial minnow hatcheries within her borders from selling stock minnows to anyone, resident or nonresident, and minnows purchased therefrom may be freely exported. However, the law served to protect against the depletion of minnows in Oklahoma's natural streams through commercial exportation. No person is allowed to export natural minnows for sale outside of Oklahoma. Such a prohibition is not repugnant to the commerce clause . . . .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hughes v. Oklahoma

2. “. . . Oklahoma law does not prohibit commercial minnow hatcheries within her borders from selling stock minnows to anyone, resident or nonresident, and minnows purchased therefrom may be freely exported. However, the law served to protect against the depletion of minnows in Oklahoma's natural streams through commercial exportation. No person is allowed to export natural minnows for sale outside of Oklahoma. Such a prohibition is not repugnant to the commerce clause . . . .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hughes v. Oklahoma

3. “[n]o person may transport or ship minnows for sale outside the state which were seined or procured within the waters of this state . . . .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hughes v. Oklahoma