Ex parte Byles’s Empirical Analysis
1910
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently December 2005 · most notably Sims v. Ahrens (1925), Davies v. Hot Springs (1920)
38 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. · Fletcher v. Peck · American Sugar Refining Co. v. Louisiana · Bacon v. Walker · Emert v. State of Missouri
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The courts are not the guardians of the rights of the people of the state, except as those rights are secured by some constitutional provision which comes within the judicial cognizance. The protection against unwise or oppressive legislation, within constitutional bounds, is by an appeal to the justice and patriotism of the representatives of the people. If this fails, the people in their sovereign capacity can correct the evil; but courts cannot assume their rights. The judiciary can only arrest the execution of a statute when it conflicts with the Constitution. It cannot run a race of opinions upon points of right, reason and expediency with the law-making power. ’ ’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Section 1. That hereafter before any person, either as owner, manufacturer or agent, shall travel over and through any county and peddle or sell any lightning rods, steel stove range, clock, pump, buggy, carriage, or other vehicle, or either of said articles, he shall procure a license as hereinafter provided from the county clerk of such county, authorizing such persons to conduct such business. “Sec. 2. That before any person shall travel over or through any county and peddle or sell any of the articles mentioned above he shall pay into the county treasury of such county the sum of 3200.00, taking the receipt of the treasurer therefor, which receipt shall state for what purpose the money was paid. The county clerk of such county upon the presentation of such certificate shall take up the same and issue to such person a certificate or license, authorizing such person to travel over such county and sell such articles, or article, for a period of one year from the first day of January preceding the date of such license. "Sec. 3. Any person who shall travel over or through any county in this state and peddle or sell, or offer to peddle or sell any of the above enumerated articles without first procuring the license heroin provided for shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, shall be fined in any sum not less than 3200.00, nor moro than $500.00. “Sec. 4. That any person who shall travel over or through any county in this state and peddle or sell any of th”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ex parte Bass
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.