Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 169 La. 1046 - Saint v. Allen

Saint v. Allen’s Empirical Analysis

1930

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
4
states following
October 2024
most recently cited

2 district · 31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably State Ex Rel. Porterie v. Smith (1935), State Ex Rel. Stratton v. Roswell Independent Schools (1991)

2 district · 31 state decisions

1201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Resler v. Shehee · Pratt v. Breckinridge · Sinking Fund Commissioners v. George · Ryland v. Harve M. Wheeler Lumber Co. · State ex rel. Wellman v. Bell

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.

  1. ““Section 1. The powers of the government of the State of Louisiana shall be divided into three distinct departments— legislative, executive, and judicial. “Section 2. No one of these departments, nor any person or collection of persons holding office in one of them, shall exercise power properly belonging to either of the others, except in the instances hereinafter expressly directed or permitted.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Counsel for appellants argue finally that these three members of the Legislature do not, as employees of the highway commission “exercise power” belonging to the executive department, because they are not officers but only employees of the highway department. The language of article 2 of the Constitution, however, leaves no doubt that it is not a law against dual office holding. It is not necessary, to constitute a violation of the article, that a person should hold office in two departments of government. It is sufficient if he is an officer in one department and at the same time is employed to perform duties, or exercise power, belonging to another department. The words “exercise power,” speaking officially, mean perform duties or functions.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “`In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own, and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. * * *”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.