Board of Com'rs of Gunnison County Colo v. E H Rollins Sons’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

121 federal appellate · 11 district · 39 state decisions

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

1. ““The constitution of Iowa (article 11, § S) ordains as follows: ‘No county, or other political or municipal corporation, shall be allowed to become indebted in any manner, or for any purpose, to an amount in the aggregate exceeding five per centum on the value of the taxable property within such county or corporation — to be ascertained by the last, state and county tax lists, previous to the incurring of such indebtedness.’ The scope and meaning of this pro- visióp of the fundamental and paramount law of the state are clear and unmistakable. No municipal corporation ‘shall he allowed’ to contract debts beyond the constitutional limit. When that limit has been reached, no debt can be contracted ‘in' any manner, or for any purpose.’ The limit of the aggregate debt of the municipality is fixed at five per cent, of the value of the taxable property within it; and that value is to be ascertained ‘by the last state and county tax lists,’ which are public records, open to all, and of the contents of which all are bound to take notice. The prohibition is addressed to the legislature, as well as to all municipal boards and officers, and to the people, and forbids any and all of them to create or to give binding force to any debts of the corporation in excess of the limits prescribed. The prohibition extending to debts contracted ‘in any manner, or for any purpose,’ it matters not whether they are in every sense new debts, or are debts contracted for the purpose of paying old ones, so”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. City of Pierre v. Dunscomb

2. ““The estoppel does not arise except upon matters of fact which the corporate officers had authority by law to determine and to certify. It is not necessary, it is true, that the recital should enumerate each particular fact essential to the existence of the obligation. A general statement that the bonds have been issued in conformity with the law will suffice, so as to embrace every fact which the officers making the statement are authorized to determine and certify. A determination and statement as to the whole series, where more than one is involved, is a determination and certificate as to each essential particular. But it still remains that there must be authority vested in the officers by law as to each necessary fact, whether enumerated or non-enumerated, to ascertain and determine its existence, and to guaranty to those dealing with them the truth and conclusiveness of their admissions. In such a case the meaning of the law granting power to issue bonds is that they may be issued, not upon the existence of certain facts to be ascertained and determined whenever disputed, but upon the ascertain ment and determination of their existence by the officers or body designated by law to issue the bonds upon such a contingency.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. King v. City of Superior

3. ““The recitals in the bonds of Gunnison county that they were Issued by the board of county commissioners for said Gunnison county in exchange at par for a valid floating indebtedness of the said county outstanding prior to September 2, 1882, under and by virtue of and in full conformity with the provisions of an act of the general assembly of the state of Colorado entitled ‘An act to enable the several counties of the state to fund their floating indebtedness,’ approved February 21, 1881; that all the requirements of law have been fully complied with by the proper officers in the issuing of this bond; that the total amount of the issue does not exceed the limit prescribed by the constitution of the state of Colorado; and that this issue of bonds ha,s been authorized by a vote of a majority of the duly-qualified electors of the said county of Gunni-son voting on the question at a general election duly held in said county on the 7th day of November, A. D. 18.82, estopped the county from asserting, against a bona tide holder for value, that the bonds so issued created an indebtedness in excess of the limit prescribed by the constitution of Colorado.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wesson v. Town of Mt. Vernon