6 Ill. 2d 78 - Wolfson v. Avery’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 37 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The General Assembly shall provide, by law, that in all elections for Directors or managers of incorporated companies every stockholder shall have the right to vote, in person or by proxy, for the number of shares of stock owned by him, for as many persons as there are directors or managers to be elected, or to cumulate said shares, and give one candidate as many votes as the number of directors multiplied by the number of his shares of stock, shall equal, or to distribute them on the same principle among as many candidates as he shall think fit; and such directors or managers shall not be elected in any other manner.” (Ill. Const. 1870, art. XI, sec. 3.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 101 Ill. 2d 315 - Roanoke Agency, Inc. v. Edgar · 222 Ill. App. 3d 398 - Chavin v. General Employment Enterprises, Inc.

2. ““The standards which apply in matters of constitutional interpretation have frequently been pointed out by this court. As we observed in People ex rel. Nelson v. Jackson-Hyland Building Corp., 400 Ill. 533 , 81 N.E.2d 57 , 580, the meaning of constitutional language ‘can best be ascertained by considering the purposes of the constitutional provision in which it appears’ and courts should ‘construe our constitutional clauses so as to give effect to the spirit in which they were adopted.’ In Peabody v. Russel, 301 Ill. 439 , 134 N.E. 148 , 149 we said: ‘It is a canon of construction well recognized, not only in this court but in courts of other jurisdictions, as it relates to statutes, that the chief purpose is to give effect to the intention of the Legislature. In seeking such intention courts are to consider the language used, the object to be attained, or the evil to be remedied. This may involve more than the literal meaning of words. That which is within the intention is within the statute, though not within the letter, and, though within the letter, it is nevertheless not within the statute if not likewise within the intention. The same general principles to be applied in construing statutes apply in the construction of Constitutions.’ If there is any distinction between the rules governing the construction of constitutions and the rules that apply to statutes, less technical ones are applied in construing constitutions.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State Ex Rel. Lyons v. Guy

3. ““Still, the practice of consulting the debates of the members of the convention which framed the constitution, as aiding to a correct determination of the intent of the framers of the instrument, has long been indulged in by courts as aiding to a true understanding of the meaning of provisions that are thought to be doubtful.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 56 Ill. App. 3d 58 - Davis v. Attic Club