Stevens v. Larwill’s Empirical Analysis
1904
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1984 · most notably Canadian Northern Railway Co. v. Eggen (1920), In re Ford (1911)
32 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 Morris v. Gilmer · State v. Bockstruck · State ex rel. Attorney General v. Vail · State ex rel. St. Louis, Keokuk & Northwestern Railway Co. v. Withrow · Long v. Long
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is contended, however, that an administrator is a state officer, and as such is included within the meaning of section 12, article VIII, of the Constitution of this state, which declares that ‘no person shall be elected or appointed to any office in this state, civil or military, who is not a citizen of the United States and who shall (not) have resided in this state one year next preceding his election or appointment’. An administrator belongs to the same class of officers as curators, guardians, receivers, referees, and the like, whose duties are private and concern private interests, and are in no sense of the term public. He is invested with no portion of the sovereign functions of the state, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public, and is therefore not an officer of this state within the meaning of the constitutional provision just quoted. ...””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The rule, is well established in every jurisdiction that the' motive or purpose of a change of domicile or residence is not material. The only question is whether the change of residence is made by the party with the bona fide intention of becoming a resident of another state.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bujac v. Wilson
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.