Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 120 Tex. 341 - Limestone County v. Robbins

Limestone County v. Robbins’s Empirical Analysis

1931

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
2
states following
September 1995
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently September 1995

7 state decisions

401931194019501960197019801990decided

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.

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

  1. ““Section 1. That any person in the State of Texas who formerly served as a duly elected and qualified Tax Collector of any county of this State while subject in that capacity to the terms and provisions of the law known as the Maximum Fee Bill, and who, during such time, collected and paid over to the Treasurer of such county the fees and commissions set out and provided for in Section 3 of Chapter 147, Acts of the Regular Session of the-34th Legislature, 1916, or any part of such fees and commissions, is hereby authorized to bring suit in any competent court of this State against such county so served by him to collect and recover all such fees and commissions so paid over by him, provided such suit shall be brought in the county where such fees and commissions were collected and erroneously or wrongfully paid over as here-inabove set out. * * * “Sec. 5. The fact that the Supreme Court of Texas in the case of Bitter v. Bexar County, 11 S.W.(2d) 163 , has held that Section 2, Chapter 64, of the Acts of the Second Called Session of the 36th Legislature, 1919, is unconstitutional, and the further fact that many Tax Collectors, acting under said Act, have erroneously paid money to some of the counties of this State,’create an emergency, and a public necessity that the Constitutional Rulé requiring bills to be read on three several days be suspended, and that this Bill be put on its third reading and final passage, and it is so enacted.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.