Stuart v. . Palmer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 6 district · 309 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 372 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is not enough that the owners may by chance have notice, or that they may as a matter of favor have a hearing. The law must require notice to them, and give them the right to a hearing and an opportunity to be heard. It matters not, upon the question of the constitutionality of such a law, that the assessment has, in fact, been fairly apportioned. The constitutional validity of law is to be tested, not by what has been done under it, but by what may, by its authority, be done. ’ ’”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Montana Co. v. St. Louis Mining & Milling Co. · Central of Georgia Ry. v. Georgia R. R. Commission

2. ““It is a principle which uzzderlies all forms of government by laws that a citizen shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The legislature has no power to take away any man’s property, nor can it authorize its agents to do so, without first providing for personal notice to be given to him, and for a full opportunity of tizne, place, and tribunal to'be heard in defense of his rights. This constitutional guaraizty is not confined to judicial proceedings, but extends to every case in which a citizen may be deprived of life, liberty, or property, whether the proceeding be judicial, administrative, or executive in its nature.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Spencer v. Merchant · County of San Mateo v. Southern Pacific R.

3. ““ I am of the opinion that the constitution sanctions no law imposing such an assessment without a notice to and a hearing, or an opportunity of a hearing, by the owners of the property to be assessed. It is not enough that the owners may by chance have notice, or that they may, as a matter of favor, nave a hearing. The law must require a notice to them, and give them a right to a hearing and an opportunity to be hoard. It matters not, upon the question of the constitutionality of such law, that the assessment has in fact been fairly apportioned. The constitutional validity of a law is to bo tested, not by what has been done under it, but what may by its authority be done. The legislature may prescribe the kind of notice and the mode in which it shall be given, but it cannot dispense with all notice. * * * ” Id. 188 . “ The legislature can no more arbitrarily impose an assessment for which property may he taken or sold, than it can render a judgment against a person without a hearing. It is a rule founded on the first principles of natural justice, older than written constitutions, that a citizen shall not he deprived of his life, liberty, or property without an opportunity to be heard in defense of his rights; and the constitutional pz’ovision that no pez-son shall be deprived of these without due process of law, has its foundation in this rule. This provision is the most important guaranty of personal rights to be found in the federal or state constitutions. It is a limitat”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. County of San Mateo v. Southern Pacific R.