Weaver v. Ham’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
65 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently January 2003 · most notably Rodgers v. Village of Tarrytown (1951), City of Waxahachie v. Watkins (1955)
65 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 Village of Euclid Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co · Lombardo v. City of Dallas · Houston & Texas Central Railroad v. City of Dallas · Lee v. . Board of Adjustment · City of San Angelo v. Boehme Bakery
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To sustain charges that the municipal judgment is arbitrary and unreasonable in its effect upon his property, `* * * the extraordinary burden rests upon appellee to show that no conclusive, or even controversial or issuable, facts or conditions existed which would authorize the governing body of the municipality to exercise the discretion confided to it by a valid ordinance in determining a matter of purely governmental policy. * * *.' * * * And, `If reasonable minds differ as to whether or not a particular restriction has a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare, the restriction must stand as a valid exercise of the police power.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The City had the power to enact the basic zoning ordinance, and to amend it, if a public necessity demanded it. While the presumption would be that the enactment of the amendatory ordinance was valid, that presumption disappears when the facts show and it was determined by the court that the City acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, and abused its discretion; that the ordinance is discriminatory and violates the rights of petitioners under the basic ordinance, and does not bear any substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare; that it “constitutes unjustifiable spot zoning”; and that the ordinance is void.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[4] The Court of Civil Appeals correctly held in this case as follows: `In the consideration of this case we have carefully borne in mind that the purpose of endowing the city with police power is to subserve the general welfare. If it appear from the terms of the ordinance or is established by the evidence as a matter of law that it does not do so, then the legislative act is void. City of West University Place v. Ellis, 134 Tex. 222 , 134 S.W.2d 1038 ; Simms v. City of Sherman, Tex.Civ.App., 181 S.W.2d 100 ; Page v. City of Portland, 178 Or. 632 , 165 P.2d 280 .' [ 227 S.W.2d 286, 293 .]”
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.