Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 621 SW2D 149 - Davis v. Blount County Beer Board

Davis v. Blount County Beer Board’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
2
states following
January 2008
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. · Crowley v. Christensen · State of Washington Seattle Title Trust Co v. Roberge · Eubank v. City of Richmond · Thomas Cusack Company v. City of Chicago

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 protesting owner of a residence located within 300 feet of the proposed beer outlet exercises no legislative power; he merely protests or fails to protest. He can neither grant nor deny a permit for the sale of beer. The permits must issue to an otherwise qualified applicant unless the owner of a residence within 300 feet appears in person and protests. The effect of a protest is to deny the permit, but that effect is derived from the legislative enactment and the ordinance passed pursuant thereto, not from the residence owner.” 621 S.W.2d at 152 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he ordinance in the case at bar absolutely prohibits the erection of any billboards in the blocks designated, but permits this prohibition to be modified with the consent of the persons who are to be most affected by such modification ... [it] permits one half of the lot owners to remove a restriction from the other property owners. This is not a delegation of legislative power, but is, as we have seen, a familiar provision affecting the enforcement of laws and ordinances.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.