Ash v. Gibson’s Empirical Analysis
1937
Citation profile
37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently March 2004 · most notably Manzanares v. Bell (1974), State v. Puckett (1982)
37 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 Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering · American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Central Trades Council · Bowman v. Continental Oil Co. · Texas Co. v. Brown · Tulare Irrigation District v. Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation District
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.
“"covered the matter dealt with in the ordinance. Therefore, the power of the city to enact the ordinance in question as held by this court in Ash v. Gibson, 145 Kan. 825 , was withdrawn by the enactment of chapter 283 of the Laws of 1937. It follows that the ordinance must be held to have been abrogated and superceded by the statute." 146 Kan. at 767 . (Emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Before this court would hold that the adoption of the highway amendment, and the enactment of the statutes pursuant thereto, had taken away from the cities of the state the right to regulate a business as dangerous as the transportation of gasoline through these cities, it would have to appear clearly from the statutes by plain provisions that such was the intent of the legislature. We have looked for such provisions and fail to find them. We are compelled to reach the conclusion that the problem of regulating this traffic on the highways outside the cities is one thing and the regulation of it within the limits of a city is another and that the latter is within the province of the governing bodies of the cities.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““. . . The entire matter is still in the hands of this court and but little would be gained should we take the position that we would consider only such statutes as were in effect when the trial court entered its judgment, or as were in effect when this court filed its first opinion. The only practical result would be that a new action would be filed immediately, and the trial court would take such action at the trial, and this court would take such action on appeal, as we are asked to do now, that is, consider the effect of the enactment of chapter 283 of the Laws of 1937 on the power of the city to enact the ordinance in question.” (1. c. 758.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Manzanares v. Bell
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.