Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 171 KY 254 - Ogden v. Cronan

Ogden v. Cronan’s Empirical Analysis

1916

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
May 1947
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 1947

12 state decisions

601916192019301940decided

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 Board of Penitentiary Commissioners v. Spencer · Thompson v. Commonwealth · Board Trustees Erlanger Graded Common School District v. Tate · Henderson Bridge Co. v. Alves

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

  1. ““The title of the act does not contain any intimation or suggestion that if was intended by the act to provide for registration outside of cities and. towns, nor does the section of the statute proposed to be amended contain any matter relating to registration outside of cities or towns. If a person should read the title of this act by itself or in connection with section 1486 of the statutes, it would reasonably and naturally occur to him that the-amendatory act contemplated some amendment to» the registration laws of the state in cities and towns. He would have no reason to suspect by-reading the title alone or in connection with the section sought to be amended, that the act did not, in fact, amend the registration laws of the state in respect to cities or towns, or that it did, in fact, extend registration to country districts outside of any city or town. It is true that the body of the act relates to registration, but not to registration in any city or town, while the title of the act reasonably and naturally conveys the meaning that the amendment- was intended to change the law relating to registration in cities or towns only.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““To enable persons reading the title of an act to-get a general idea of what the act treated of or contained, and it has come to be a recognized legislative practice for members and others interested in. legislation to read the title of acts and gather therefrom, in a general way at least the subject-matter of the act, and under the authority of this constitutional provision members of the Legislature, as. well as the public interested in legislation, have the-right to rely on the title as indicating the subject-matter of the act and to assume that the act contains no legislation that is not embraced in a general way by the subject expressed in the title. But. if it were allowable to insert sections in an act entirely foreign to the scope of the legislation as expressed in the title, the purpose of the Constitution, would be entirely defeated, and much legislation, would be enacted that the members would not have approved had they known that it was contained in. the-act.””
    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.