Lake County v. Graham’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

49 federal appellate · 3 district · 35 state decisions

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

1. ““If the fact necessary to the existence of the authority was by law to be ascertained, not officially by the officers charged' with the execution of the power, but by reference to some express and definite record of a public character, then the true meaning of the law would be that the authority to act at all depends upon the actual objective existence of the requisite fact, as shown by the record, and not upon its ascertainment and determination by any one; and the consequence would necessarily follow that all persons claiming under the exercise of such a power might be put to proof of the fact made a condition.of its lawfulness, notwithstanding any recitals in the instrument. The amount of the bonds issued was known. It is stated in the recital itself. It was .$87,000. Thei holder of each bond was apprised of that fact. The amount of the assessed value of the taxable property in the county is not stated; but, ex vi termini, it was ascertainable in one way only, and that was by reference to the assessment itself, — a public record equally accessible to all intending purchasers of bonds, as well as to the county officers. This being known, the ratio between the two amounts was fixed by an arithmetical calculation. 2sTo recital involving the amount of the assessed taxable valuation of the property to be taxed for the payment of the bonds can take the place of the assessment itself, for it is the amount as fixed by reference to that record that is made by the constitution the s”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Francis v. Howard County

2. ““A statement in tlie bond of a municipal corporation that it is issued under the provisions of the act, * * * and in conformity with its provisions; that all the requirements of law have been fully complied with; that the total amount of the issue does not exceed the limits prescribed by the constitution of that state; and that the issue of the bonds had been authorized by a vote of a majority of the duly-qualified electors of the county voting on the question at a genéral election duly held, — estops the county, in an action by an innocent holder for value to recover on coupons of such bonds, from denying the truth of these.recitals. When there is an express recital upon the face of a municipal bond that the limit of issue prescribed by the state constitution has not been passed, and the bonds themselves do not show that it had, the holder is not bound to look further.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Waite v. City of Santa Cruz

3. ““There is, therefore, no estoppel as to the constitutional question, because there is no recital in regard to it.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dietrich v. Bath County