Keith v. Bingham’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The section of the constitution just quoted refers to, and is intended to regulate, the exercise of the right of eminent domain, whereas special assessments for local improvements, such as tax bills before us, are referable to, and sustainable under, the taxing power. This distinction is well recognized both here and elsewhere in the United States. Garrett v. St. Louis (1857), 25 Mo. 505 ; Lewis on Eminent Domain, section 5. If the taxing power has been called into play in the mode required by law for the purpose of paying for a local improvment, such as paying or grading a street, it is no defense to a bill issued therefor to say, as is said here, that the street, or the .improvement, damaged and did not benefit the property, though, if such were the fact, the party injured might have his action (on á proper showing) under the constitution for such injury. Householder v. City of Kansas, 83 Mo. 488 . If the city had invoked the power of eminent domain unlawfully in the premises, it could be held accountable therefor, but that would not interfere with the collection of the special tax bill for an improvement regularly made under the taxing power. The right of action which a person might thus have against the municipality would constitute no just defense to the claim of the contractor who had made the improvement and to whom, under the law in question here, the tax assessment is payable.” Keith v. Bingham, 100 Mo. 306 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. City of Springfield ex rel. Tuttle v. Baker