Williams v. Motley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) an involuntary pecuniary burden, regardless of name, laid upon individuals or property; (2) imposed by, or under authority of the legislature; (3) for public purposes, including the purposes of defraying expenses of gov ernment of undertakings authorized by it; and (4) under the police of taxing power of the state.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re DeJesus · Sunnyside Coal Co. v. Rushton

2. “The permit is issued at the request of an operator and bestows an individual benefit — the privilege of operating a surface mine — on the applicant. It is similar to a license to practice a profession or to conduct a broadcast station. The abandoned mine reclamation fee is quite different. It is imposed as an additional charge on operators who have already received permits. Unlike the permit fee, the reclamation fee does not confer a benefit on the operator different from that enjoyed by the general public when environmental conditions are improved. On the contrary, it is an involuntary exaction for a public purpose — to create a fund to be used for “reclamation and restoration of land and water resources adversely affected by past coal mining.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Suburban Motor Freight

3. “assessments exacted in connection with engaging in an activity ". Id. at 744 (emphasis added). The taxes at issue in Williams are thus not analogous to the shared responsibility payment imposed for not purchasing health insurance. Case like Williams , which address payments imposed for electing an alternative course of engaging in an allowed activity, should be understood to set the outer marker for exactions that give rise to a priority claim for an excise. "Because priorities grant special rights to the holders of priority claims, priorities under the Code are to be narrowly construed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Huenerberg