Burney v. Lee’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

46 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. ““ * * * “But regardless of whether the making of rules of procedure is strictly judicial or legislative in its nature, it is necessarily auxiliary to and only useful for the proper carrying out of the legitimate power of the judicial department. Just how far the rule-making power lies exclusively within the control of the courts, and just how far the legislative authority may interfere therein, it is not necessary for us to decide in this case, and we expressly reserve that matter for consideration if the necessity does later arise. The legislature, so far as it has the power to do so, has now left that matter exclusively to the supreme court by chapter 8 of the Session Laws of 1939, * * *. “[5] We hold, therefore, that chapter 8, supra, was not unconstitutional as an unauthorized delegation of legislative power, but was merely a withdrawal by the legislature from the field in which it had at most merely concurrent power with the courts.””

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 22 Ariz. App. 41 - Del Castillo v. Wells · J.W. Hancock Enterprises, Inc. v. Arizona State Registrar of Contractors

2. ““But, says defendant, even admitting this to be true, it does not necessarily follow that the court had the right to repeal an existing statute of the legislature, such as section 3661, supra. This is true, but the legislature itself expressly states in section 3 of chapter 8, supra, that all statutes relating to pleading, practice and procedure, which were in existence at the time chapter 8 took effect, should be considered to be rules of court only, and should remain in effect as rules until modified or suspended by rules promulgated by the court pursuant to the act. This is, in effect, a legislative repeal of existing statutes of procedure to take effect at an undetermined but a determinable future time. If the legislature has the power to repeal an existing act in this manner, then section 3661, supra, was repealed as of the date the supreme court promulgated a rule inconsistent therewith. The question of whether this may be done is answered in the case of State [ex rel. Foster-Wyman Lumber Co.] v. Superior Court, 148 Wash. 1 , 267 P. 770, 774 , in the following language: “ ‘A minor attack upon the rule needs here to be mentioned. It will be noticed that the statute of 1925 provides that: “ ‘ “Sec. 2. When and as the rules of courts herein authorized shall be promulgated all laws in conflict therewith shall be and become of no further force or effect.” “ ‘It is argued that, since the statute takes effect upon the happening of a subsequent event, to wit, the making of the ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. R. E. W. Construction Co. v. District Court of the Third Judicial District

3. ““When the legislature enacted chapter 84, it merely withdrew from a field wherein it had theretofore functioned as a co-ordinate branch of our government with the court in the promulgation of rules of pleading, practice, and procedure. Whether the legislative branch of the government was ever rightfully in the rule-making field, or was a mere trespasser or usurper, need not now be determined. Chapter 84 is not a delegation of power. It is a mere abdication or withdrawal from the rule-making field. It is in effect a relinquishment of the rule-making field to the court. The Legislature, in effect, said to the court: ‘You make the rules hereafter.’ « * ifc ‡ “Being satisfied as we are that chapter 84 is not a grant of power, there is nothing violative of fundamental law or the Constitution in this, the highest judicial body in the state, to prescribe rules for an inferior judicial body.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. R. E. W. Construction Co. v. District Court of the Third Judicial District