Wright v. Vogt’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
131 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 132 later decisions — most recently September 2011 · most notably Service Armament Co. v. Hyland (1976), NJ Builders, Owners and Managers Association v. Blair (1972)
131 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 47 U.S.C. § 151
Relies on Guaranty Trust Co of New York v. United States · Choate v. Trapp · Brandon v. Board of Commissioners of Montclair · Brandon v. Board of Commissioners · Mansfield & Swett, Inc. v. Town of West Orange
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 132 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is the general rule that exceptions in a legislative enactment are to be strictly but reasonably construed. But this rule, like all canons of interpretation, yields to the intention revealed by context. The inquiry in the final analysis is the true intention of the law; and, in the quest for the intention, the letter gives way to the obvious reason and spirit of the expression.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“it would be utterly unreasonable to hold that structures of like kind and degree are not within the exception because not within the letter. That view would violate the spirit of the exception; and disserve the true intention disclosed by the regulation as a whole. Indeed, it is apparent that radio and television antennae were not within the contemplation of the local law makers when the ordinance was adopted; and it is equally clear that they are not within the letter of the by-law when considered as an entirety. It seems reasonably clear that the words of exclusion in the exception have a generic rather than a specific connotation. Only thus can the exception be read as not unduly discriminatory in relation to the purposes to be served by zoning, assuming that aesthetic considerations alone would sustain a use restriction such as is asserted here.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As in the case of statutes, the purpose of construction of ordinances and municipal by-laws is the discovery and effectuation of the local legislative intent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.