State ex rel. Smith v. Duncan’s Empirical Analysis
1931
Citation profile
4 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently October 2015
4 district · 18 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 Counselman v. Hitchcock · Brown v. Walker · State ex. rel. Curtis v. City of Topeka · State ex rel. Hopkins v. Foley · State ex rel. Coleman v. Trinkle
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he writ of ouster cannot issue unless there has been a willful violation of official duty prompted by a bad or corrupt purpose, and without any reasonable grounds to believe that the action is lawful. Mere departure from the letter of the law will not warrant a judgment of ouster, unless it is prompted by an evil design. (State ex rel., v. Trinkle, 70 Kan. 396 , 78 P. 854 ; State, ex rel., v. Foley, 107 Kan. 608 , 193 P. 361 .) The county commissioners are vested with the general control and supervision of the affairs of the county. They are vested with discretionary powers, and must necessarily be guided by their judgment. An error in judgment does not come within the purview of the statute, but unlawful acts prompted by a corrupt purpose and bad faith warrant a judgment of ouster.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Morrison““. . . good faith in the performance of their official duty would have required them (the county commissioners) to have examined and inquired into the enumeration, together with the manner in which it was taken, with the closest scrutiny. Good faith would dictate, when confronted with this problem, that they counsel the proper legal authority as to their rights and responsibilities in the premises. . . .” (pp. 95, 96.)”
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.