State v. State Ex Rel.’s Empirical Analysis
1930
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently April 1999 · most notably Patel v. OMH Medical Center, Inc. (1999), Cities Service Gas Co. v. Peerless Oil & Gas Co. (1950)
1 federal appellate · 36 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 Sioux City Bridge Co. v. Dakota County · Johnson v. Grady County · Hays v. Bonaparte · Wenner v. Mothersead · Josey Oil Co. v. Board of Commissioners
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Where different legislative enactments have reference to the same subject and are consistent with each other, they should be construed together and harmonized, if possible, so that effect will be ¡given to each so far as is consistent with the evident intent of the latest enactment.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““So we hold that any taxpayer feeling aggrieved at the assessment as made by the assessor must appear before the county board of equalization as provided for in section 8966, C. O. S. 1921, unless such taxpayer shall show by affidavit good cause for not having attended the meeting of the county board of equalization, for the purpose of correcting such erroneous assessment, and, if, he can do so, then such taxpayer must appear before the board of county commissioners for the purpose of having such erroneous assessment corrected, and, if the board shall determine from such showing that the taxpayer has good cause for not having attended the meeting of the county board of equalization for the purpose of correcting such erroneous assessment, then the board of county commissioners is authorized to hear and determine allegations of erroneous assessment, and, if such board finds from the evidence that such assessment was erroneous, they may equalize the same in the same manner that the county board of equalization is authorized to do by section 9671, C. O. S. 1921. Any party granted the right of appeal from decisions of the board of county commissioners may appeal to the district court of the county.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * any officer, or other person authorized to assess values, or subjects, for taxation, who shall commit any willful error in the performance of his duty, shall be deemed guilty of malfeasance, and upon conviction thereof shall forfeit his office, and be otherwise punished as may be provided by law.””
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.