Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 97 Me. 66 - State v. Mitchell

State v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

1902

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
10
states following
December 1990
most recently cited

4 district · 31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently December 1990 · most notably Shapiro Bros. Shoe Co. v. Lewiston-Auburn Shoeworkers Protective Ass'n (1974), Associated Hospital Service of Maine v. Mahoney (1965)

4 district · 31 state decisions — followed in 10 states

901902191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Strauder v. West Virginia · Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. · Gulf Ry Co v. Ellis · Hale v. Allinson

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

  1. ““ ‘It may be suggested that, even if the clause cited be unconstitutional, the rest of the statute may not be, and that, the attempted exemption being of no force, all persons, including all those persons described in that clause as well as the defendant, are equally liable to pay the license fees. It is true that in some cases one section or provision of a statute may be held unconstitutional without invalidating the whole statute, but that cannot be done when it would violate the legislative intent. In this case it evidently was the clear intent of the legislature that' the persons described in the clause cited should not pay license fees in any event. That clause is more than a matter of detail. It is an integral part of the statute, and affecting all that part requiring the payment of license fees. To hold that, because of the invalidity of that section, the persons the legislature therein enacted should not pay license fees must nevertheless pay such fees, is to violate a clearly expressed legislative intent; is to impose burdens the legislature explicitly declared should not be imposed.’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.