Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 121 KAN 72 - In re Irish

In re Irish’s Empirical Analysis

1926

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
7
states following
August 1949
most recently cited

1 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently August 1949

1 district · 8 state decisions

60192619301940decided

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 State v. Wilson · City of Lyons v. Cooper · In re Chipchase

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

  1. ““Whether an exercise of legislative power ‘is flagrantly unjust, unreasonable or oppressive’ (Desser v. City of Wichita, supra) is a question which in the nature of things must be broadly addressed to the judicial conscience. In pretending to exact a tribute of $150 per annum from nonresidents of Holton for the right to sell bread in that little city, the ordinance grossly offends against my sense of justice and good faith. The only evidence presented to us shows such an exaction will amount to virtual prohibition. It may be said that this evidence is the mere conclusion of the witness. It is also my conclusion — one I draw by taking judicial notice of the pertinent facts and circumstances; I am persuaded this provision of the ordinance will never bring one legitimate dime into the city' treasury, and I cannot persuade myself it was ever intended to do so. . . .1 hold the tax unjust, unreasonable and oppressive; and if. in its practical operation it does amount to prohibition, as I believe and as time will certainly demonstrate, it is violative of both the state and federal constitutions. (Const., art. 12, sec. 5; U. S. Const., 14th Amend.; City of Lyons v. Cooper, 39 Kan. 324 , 18 Pac. 296 ; In re Chipchase, Petitioner, 56 Kan. 357 , 43 Pac. 264 ; State v. Wilson, 101 Kan. 789, 792 , and citations, 168 Pac. 679 .)” (pp. 74, 75.)”
    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.