Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 100 KAN 495 - State v. Nagle

State v. Nagle’s Empirical Analysis

1917

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
7
states following
July 1985
most recently cited

29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently July 1985 · most notably Thomas Ex Rel. Thomas v. Board of Township Trustees (1978), State ex rel. Boynton v. Public Service Commission (1932)

29 state decisions

16019171920193019401950196019701980decided

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 State ex rel. Lott v. Brewer · People v. Brown · Dement v. Rokker · Attorney General v. Stone · Terre Haute & Indianapolis Railroad v. State ex rel. Ketcham

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

  1. ““ ‘It is a familiar doctrine, that the State is not embraced within the Statute of Limitations, unless specially named, and by analogy, would not fall within the doctrine of estoppel. Its rights, revenues, and property would be at fearful hazard, should this doctrine be applicable to a State. A great and overshadowing public policy of preserving these rights, revenues and property from injury and loss by the negligence of public officers, forbids the application of the doctrine. If it can be applied in this case, where a comparatively small amount is involved, it must be applied where millions are involved, thus threatening the very existence of the government. “ ‘The doctrine is well settled that no laches can be imputed to the government, and by the same reasoning which excuses it from laches, and on the same grounds, it should not be affected by the negligence or even willfulness of any one of its officials.’ (p.438.)” (p.498.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““In the absence of positive statutes clearly covering the subject, no inaction, procrastination or delay on the part of public officials is ever permitted to prejudice the rights of the state.” (p. 497.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.