Peterson v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘When this amendment was adopted the law makers had before them the case of White v. Moore, supra. They knew the problems involved in that case, and the uncertainties presented by the language of the original act. This, decision was in fact a part of the law they were amending. The original enactment, the amendment and the decision must be construed together. The-decision told the Legislature it had by the original act imposed no tax on rentals from offices and store rooms for the reason that it had specifically designated certain businesses through which ran a common thread or purpose followed by the expression “any other business or occupation charging * * * rents”. The decision told the Legislature that when it used this, phrase it used it in a restrictive sense, and that to construe such general language as all inclusive in meaning, so as. to apply to every kind or character of business that charge rents, was equivalent to holding that when the Legislature used the word “other”, if it meant, to use it in a non-restrictive sense, there-was no purpose in particularizing the-nine businesses preceding. It was told in effect that if it was to use these general terms without restriction there was. no object in particular enumeration.. With all this before it, the Legislature,, in its amendment, proceeded to make-the same particular enumerations with one addition and proceeded to use the-same general words “any other business, or occupation charging storages [sic] fees or rent”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 5 Ariz. App. 594 - Arizona State Tax Commission v. First Bank Building Corp.

2. ““ ‘* * * In the first (referring to Subsection 1 of § 42-1314) it meant to include those furnishing chiefly entertainment or amusement for the public, such, for instance, as shows, races, games; and in the second, those supplying accommodations, either wholly or in part, for tourists or transients, such, for instance, as guest houses, dude ranches and resorts, hotels or tourist camps. One reading these two enumerations finds it difficult, if not impossible, to escape the conclusion that only businesses possessing these respective characteristics were intended to be included in these groups.’ % :ji * % j{í”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 5 Ariz. App. 594 - Arizona State Tax Commission v. First Bank Building Corp.