Stewart v. Mack’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Other cases in which the act has been upheld and declared to be constitutional are Central Truck Lines v. Railroad Commission, 146 Fla. 521 , 1 So. 2d 470 ; Dickinson v. Cahoon, 107 Fla. 155 , 144 So. 345 ; and Tyson v. Stoutamire, 104 Fla. 505 , 140 So. 454 , 456. In all of the decisions just cited, it is significant to observe that this court noted that the legislature corrected the irregularities which the United States Supreme Court pointed out in the Florida statute (chapter 13700, acts of 1929) in the case of Smith v. Cahoon, supra, and we specifically stated that the 1931 act did overcome the stated objections to the prior law. In doing so the court said, Tyson v. Stoutamire, supra — “Likewise, the history, intent, and purpose of chapter 14764 is also so clear and well known that we are probably authorized to judicially notice the fact that its enactment was directly brought about because of the supposed effect of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the ease of Smith v. Cahoon, 283 U. S. 553 , 51 S.Ct. 582 , 75 L.Ed. 1264 , which was supposed to have, to a large extent, rendered invalid the 1929 law on the subject of certificated vehicles. "This should dispose of the attach on the act in question. We have gone extensively into the matter because of its importance to the transportation system of the state and its relation to the act under question and the powers, duties and responsibilities of the respondent Florida Railroad and Public Utilities Co”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gray v. Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc.

2. “The bedrock case defining the powers, duties and responsibilities of the respondent Commission is that of Central Truck Lines v. Railroad Commission, 118 Fla. 526 , 160 So. 22, 23 , and we deem it significant that its pertinent language should be quoted here — “The Railroad Commission has been made the repository of a general grant of regulatory powers as to both rail and motor carrier services performed in the state of Florida. It supervises and regulates railroads (and to some extent water carrier service) by virtue of the long-standing statutes of this state on that subject. See sections 6692-6751, C.G.L., sections 4607-4665, R.G.S. (F.S.A. §§ 350.01 to 350.66). It supervises and regulates auto transportation companies and their peculiar services by virtue of chapter 13700, Acts 1929, and chapter 14764, Acts 1931, which re-enacted and superseded the 1929 act on the same subject. All of these statutes are in contemplation of law statutes in pari materia, and have for their object the appropriate regulation of both rail and motor transportation services in their relation to each other and in relation to the carrying on of commerce in the state in so far as the subject of transportation is concerned.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gray v. Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc.