Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 173 Okla. 282 - Hampton v. Hamilton Const. Co.

Hampton v. Hamilton Const. Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1935

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
November 1991
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently November 1991

1 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

601935194019501960197019801990decided

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 City of Shawnee v. City of Tecumseh · State Ex Rel. Hatfield v. Moreland · Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Excise Board · Olson v. Schulz

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. ““Such sinking fund shall be used: “First. For the payment of interest coupons as they fall due. “Second. For the payment of bonds falling due, if any such there be, and, “Third. For the payment of judgments against the municipality, if any there be; provided, that when any sinking fund has been used or may hereafter be used to pay judgments as herein provided, that notwithstanding the fact that such judgment or judgments have been paid with such sinking fund, it shall be the duty of the proper officers to make the levies to pay such judgments the same as if the same had not been paid out of such sinking fund, and when so levied and collected the same shall be turned into the sinking fund out of which such judgment or judgments were paid.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““By such a payment a temporary diversion of funds occurs by the investment of sinking fund money in judgments. The proviso contained in the statute requires a levy of taxes and a replacement of the sinking fund moneys so invested in judgments.””
    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.