Bernstein v. Smutz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

54 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““. . . It is always open to interested parties to contend that the legislative body has gone beyond its constitutional power. The question is whether the police power can be stretched as far as was done in this case. In Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 [ 43 S.Ct. 158 , 67 L.Ed. 322 , 28 A.L.R. 1321, 1324 ], Justice Holmes said (p. 1325) : ‘The protection of private property in the 5th Amendment presupposes that it is wanted for public use, but provides that it shall not be taken for such use without compensation. A similar assumption is made in the decisions upon the 14th Amendment. Hairston v. Danville & W. R. Co., 208 U.S. 598, 605 [ 28 S.Ct. 331 , 52 L.Ed. 637, 639 , 13 Ann.Cas. 1008]. When this seemingly absolute protection is found to be qualified by the police power, the natural tendency of human nature is to extend the qualification more and more until at last private property disappears. But that cannot be accomplished in this way under the Constitution of the United States. ’ “In Matter of Application of Throop, 169 Cal. 93 [ 145 P. 1029 ], it was said (p. 99) : ‘As stated by the supreme court of the United States in Dobbins v. Los Angeles, 195 U.S. 223 [ 25 S.Ct. 18 , 49 L.Ed. 169 ], “. . . it is now thoroughly well settled by decisions by this court that municipal by-laws and ordinances, and even legislative enactments undertaking to regulate useful business enterprises, are subject to investigation in the courts with a view to determining whether the l”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Endara v. City of Culver City

2. “An examination of the California decisions discloses that the cases in which zoning ordinances have been held invalid and unreasonable as applied to particular property fall roughly into four categories: 1. Where the zoning ordinance attempts to exclude and prohibit existing and established uses or businesses that are not nuisances. [Citations.] 2. Where the restrictions create a monopoly. [Citations.] 3. Where the use of adjacent property renders the land entirely unsuited to or unusable for the only purpose permitted by the ordinance. [Citation.] 4. Where a small parcel is restricted and given less rights than the surrounding property, as where a lot in the center of a business or commercial district is limited to use for residential purposes, thereby creating an `island' in the middle of a larger area devoted to other uses. [Citations.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 45 Cal. 2d 325 - Roman Catholic Welfare Corp. v. City of Piedmont

3. ““The discriminatory effect of the ordinance lies in its singling out for regulation a small area and imposing upon owners and lessees therein restrictions not applicable to other [surrounding] areas * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. White v. City of Twin Falls