Bitter v. County.’s Empirical Analysis
1928
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently March 2006
16 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 Arnold v. Leonard · Doeppenschmidt v. International & Great Northern Railroad · Delta County v. Blackburn · Blount v. Windley · Heigel v. Wichita County
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * if in the caption a purpose be but generally stated, that gives sufficient notice that all related and incidental matters may have attention in the body of the act; statement of the ultimate object will include warning of presence of details appropriate to achievement of the purpose. * * * Likewise, the two-subject inhibition (section 35, art. 3) is observed if the two things have mutual relevancy or individual relevancy to accomplishment of a general purpose. * * * ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“in transactions distinct from and independent of those out of which the obligations sought to be enforced by the [governmental] plaintiffs arose” and that government was”
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.