State Ex Rel. Lyons v. Guy’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently November 2025
23 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 401 (§ 201 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on E. K. Buck Retail Stores v. Harkert · Montgomery v. State ex rel. Enslen · Manning, Commissioner of Finance v. Sims · State Ex Rel. Hawthorne v. Wiseheart · 6 Ill. 2d 78 - Wolfson v. Avery
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[.Reeves ] has no relevance to our inquiry. Therein, the Constitution provided that a legislator could not be elected to any office “the emoluments of which shall have been increased, during the term for which he was elected.” The Reeves court held that the adoption of a retirement plan for judges was not an “emolument”; thus, one who had been a legislator when the plan was adopted could seek election as a judge. In so ruling, the court said the word “emolument” implied actual pecuniary gain, rather than some imponderable and contingent benefit. There is nothing imponderable and contingent about paying a specified monthly allowance such as is contemplated by the plan before us. It should also be noted that the Reeves court specifically avoided deciding whether the retirement plan was a pension, adjusted or deferred income, or insurance.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Vreeland v. Byrne · Brown v. Meyer““The appropriation under discussion provided for the purchase of an automobile by the Board of Administration for the use of the Governor. It was the property of the State. When he used it he was not entitled to mileage. The restrictions of Section 39-01-03 NDCC applied to its use to the same extent as to the use of any other motor vehicle owned by the State. The purchase of the automobile merely changed the mode of transportation available to the Governor. It did not increase the emoluments of his office.” State ex rel. Lyons v. Guy, supra, 107 N.W.2d at 216 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Walker v. Omdahl
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.