Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 117 W. Va. 345 - Elliott v. Hudson

117 W. Va. 345 - Elliott v. Hudson’s Empirical Analysis

1936

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
June 1988
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently June 1988

5 state decisions

20193619401950196019701980decided

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 Hess v. Pawloski · State v. Mines · Pawloski v. Hess · State Ex Rel. Grodin v. Barns · State v. Haskins

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

  1. “"The purpose of such a constitutional provision is the protection of both the legislators and the public. At the outset it is advisable that by the title of a bill pending in a legislature, all persons shall be thereby reasonably informed of its purport—the legislator in order that he may be initially advised of the nature of the proposition which he is called upon to support or oppose; and the citizen that he may have opportunity to advocate or resist the proposed enactment. To submerge an important proposition in the body of an act with wholly inadequate reference thereto, if any, in the title, not only is subversive of the principle just discussed that all interested persons should be fairly informed of the import of pending legislation, but is destructive of the American concept of the necessity of open consideration of legislative matters. Such concealment tends to deception. And, then, after the passage of an act, the sufficiency of its title is of primary importance, both as to those who might claim advantage of its provisions, and the persons against whom it will operate. For these reasons, a title which does not furnish at least a `pointer' to a challenged provision of the act is insufficient."”
    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.