Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 174 Okla. 492 - Weaver v. Bishop

Weaver v. Bishop’s Empirical Analysis

1935

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
3
states following
October 2007
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently October 2007 · most notably 141 W. Va. 595 - Martin v. Williams (1956), Smicklas v. Spitz (1992)

24 state decisions

5019351940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Village of Euclid Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co · Nectow v. City of Cambridge · City of Walla Walla v. Walla Walla Water Co · Zahn v. Board of Public Works · Miller v. Board of Public Works of Los Angeles

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

  1. ““The plaintiffs further allege that if it be construed that the defendant has a good and valid permit to construct said filling station, and that plaintiffs are barred from appealing the action of the said building inspector ... that plaintiffs will be deprived of their property without due process of law.... “[Defendants allege that said zoning ordinance was duly passed and approved in the manner required by law, after due notice to property owners, and that the plaintiffs had the right at all times to make application to the legislative body ... to amend the said ordinance, and could ... have submitted ... all the questions and objections now sought to be presented ... that plaintiffs under said ordinance have no right to an appeal to the action of the building inspector in granting the permit herein, and that if the plaintiffs had any such right to appeal, that such right was lost in that the appeal was not taken within the time prescribed. “The plaintiffs’ response is in substance that the building permit issued to the defendant ... was void for want of notice to the plaintiffs____ “The evidence is that no notice ... was given either of the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs had no knowledge of same until after the expiration of more than ten days [the appeal period]. The zoning ordinance ... does not provide for such notice.... “The record does not disclose that under the ordinance of Tulsa that notice to other parties is required generally in obtaining municipal permit”
    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.