Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 17 ARIZ 383 - Webster v. Parks

Webster v. Parks’s Empirical Analysis

1915

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
February 1951
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently February 1951

8 state decisions

3019151920193019401950decided

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 Paxton v. Baum · Avery v. Pima County

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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ ‘It is for money paid out by order of the Board for some purpose not authorized by law — that is, paid out for a purpose which the law does not sanction under any circumstances — that the members of the board are personally liable.’ ””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Under the express terms of this statute, the fact that the board may have acted in a judicial manner, or that its members may have been honest and conscientious in their belief of their right to pay out the sums of money charged, cannot in the least affect their liability for money paid out ‘without authority of law.’ If the members of the board would avoid personal responsibility for salary, fees or other sums of money paid out by them, they must ascertain' if such payments are for a purpose authorized by some statute or law of the state. Good faith and honesty of purpose on their part are no defense to a lawsuit to recover moneys paid out without the law’s sanction.” (Italics ours.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““But we do not think we are required to go to the length of making the supervisors refund this sum to the county, . . . for a mere irregularity. It would be converting what the lawmakers intended to be a very salutary rule of law for the protection of the funds of the county into a severity of punishment so oppressive as to be avoided if possible.””
    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.