Parker v. Riley’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently January 2016 · most notably 13 Cal. 4th 497 - People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996), 21 Cal. 3d 102 - Younger v. Superior Court (1978)
55 state decisions
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 J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States · Louisville Nashville Railroad Company v. Green Garrett · State Ex Rel. Barney v. Hawkins · Annenberg v. Roberts · People v. . Charles Schweinler Press
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he doctrine has not been interpreted as requiring the rigid classification of all the incidental activities of government, with the result that once a technique or method of procedure is associated with a particular branch of the government, it can never be used thereafter by another.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“is to prevent the combination in the hands of a single person or group of the basic or fundamental powers of government.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The constitutional provision clearly implies that the prohibition is directed at the conferring of any other office, trust, or employment upon a member of the legislature. A member of the legislature is already an officer holding a position of trust under the state government. Where a statute merely makes available new machinery and new methods by which particular legislators may keep themselves informed upon specific problems, it cannot be said to have imposed upon them any new office or trust. The additional duties which rest upon the legislative members of the commission are identical in purpose and kind with those which they already perform. As was said in People v. Tremaine, 252 N.Y. 27, 41 [ 168 N.E. 817 ], "The duties of members of the Legislature may be enlarged without making a civil appointment or creating a new office, so long as the duties are such as may be properly attached to the legislative office...." 18 Cal.2d at 88 , 113 P.2d at 876 . (Italics mine.)”
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.