Boreali v. Axelrod’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 21 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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Because of the constitutional provision that “The legislative power of this State shall be vested in the Senate and the Assembly” (N.Y. Const., Art. Ill, § 1), the Legislature cannot pass on its lawmaking functions to other bodies ..., but there is no constitutional prohibition against the delegation of power, with reasonable safeguards and standards, to an agency or commission to administer the law as enacted by the Legislature .... The delegation of power to make the law, which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be, cannot be done, but there is no valid objection to the conferring of authority or discretion as to a law’s execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance of it.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Leonard v. Dutchess County Department of Health · 105 F. Supp. 2d 258 - Leonard v. DUTCHESS CTY. DEPT. OF HEALTH

2. “[ (2) ] in adopting the antismoking regulations challenged here the PHC did not merely fill in the details of broad legislation describing the over-all policies to be implemented [but rather] ... wrote on a clean slate, creating its own comprehensive set of rules without benefit of legislative guidance, ... [ (3) ] the agency acted in an area in which the Legislature had repeatedly tried—and failed—to reach agreement in the face of substantial public debate and vigorous lobbying by a variety of interested factions, ... [and (4) ] no special expertise or technical competence in the field of health was involved in the development of the antismoking regulations challenged here.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 105 F. Supp. 2d 258 - Leonard v. DUTCHESS CTY. DEPT. OF HEALTH · 178 F. Supp. 2d 396 - Dutchess/Putnam Restaurant & Tavern Ass'n v. Putnam County Department of Health

3. ““ * * * It would be pragmatically impossible, as well as jurisprudentially unsound, for us to attempt to identify and excise particular provisions while leaving the remainder of the PHC’s antismoking code intact, since the product of such an effort would be a regulatory scheme that neither the Legislature nor the PHC intended.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 124 N.C. App. 578 - City of Roanoke Rapids v. Peedin · 65 Ohio Misc. 2d 65 - Cookie's Diner, Inc. v. Columbus Board of Health