Hunter v. Conner’s Empirical Analysis
1925
Citation profile
63 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently January 2007 · most notably Southern v. Beeler, Atty.-Gen. (1946), Bayless v. Knox County (1955)
63 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.
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 meet this constitutional requirement it is not necessary for the title to index the details of the act or give a synopsis of it. Memphis Street Railway Co. v. Byrne, 119 Tenn. 278 , 104 S. W. 460 . It is sufficient to direct the mind to the object of the proposed legislation (Truss v. State, 13 Lea [311] 312); the general purpose being accomplished, if the caption states the object of the legislation so that the legislative intent may be gathered from the words used (Van Dyke v. Thompson, 136 Tenn. 136 , 189 S. W. 62 ; Ryan v. [Louisville & N.] Terminal Co., 102 Tenn. [111] 126, 50 S. W. 744 , 45 L. R, A. 303).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The other acts, which it is insisted must be construed in connection with this, are not before us for review. Their validity cannot be brought in question in this proceeding. If they suspend a general law for the benefit of a particular county, they would be void, and could not operate to destroy the uniformity of the act before us.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is clearly apparent that the provision in the last paragraph of section 4 [held to be unconstitutional] is detached and not interwoven with other provisions, and that the act can stand with it omitted. Elision of this part of the act does not make a casus omissus.”
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.