Snyder v. Compton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

49 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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is not meant by this provision that every act which amends the statutory law shall set out at length the entire law as amended. Under such a rule legislation would in many instances be impracticable. This is especially the case in this state, where the existence of the common law'is due to statutory enactment. The practice which it was the purpose of the provision in question to prohibit was that of amending a statute by referring to its title, and by providing that it should be amended by adding to or striking out certain words, or by omitting certain language and inserting in lieu thereof certain other words. It was not intended to prohibit the passage of a law which declared fully its provisions without direct reference to any other act, although its effect should be to enlarge or restrict the operation of some other statutes. Similar provisions in other Constitutions have been construed not to apply to implied amendments. People v. Mahaney, 13 Mich. 481 ; Swartwout v. Railway, 24 Mich. 389 ; Lehman v. McBride, 15 Ohio St. 573 ; Shields v. Bennett, 8 W. Va. 74 ; Ins. Co. v. Taxing Dist., 4 Lea [Tenn.] 644; Baum v. Rapheal, 57 Cal. 361 . The statute in question restricts the operation of the former statutes upon the same subject, but we think cannot be deemed as an amendment of such acts within the meaning of the section quoted.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Page v. Tucker

2. “Here, although the subsidiary provision is not express, it is legitimately connected with the main subject, and tends to effect and enforce the main object of the law. `Any provision calculated to carry the declared object into effect is unobjectionable, although not specifically indicated in its title.' 1 Dill.Mun.Corp. 28, quoted with approval in Johnson v. Martin, 75 Tex. 33 [ 12 S.W. 321 ].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wilkinson v. Lyon

3. ““No law shall be revived or amended by reference to its title; but in such case the act revived, or the section or sections amended, shall be re-enacted and published at length.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Page v. Tucker