State Ex Rel. Johnson v. Schmidt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ . . Notice of such election shall be given at least twenty-one days prior to the date thereof by posting notices on the, front door of each schoolhouse in the proposed district and by publishing notice twice in a newspaper published in each county in which any part of the proposed district lies, the first publication to be not less than twenty-one days prior to the election . . .’ (Emphasis ours.) “The only change made in the statute was the addition of the words ‘the first publication to be not less than twenty-one days prior to the election.’ “[1] Prior to this amendement [amendment] the rule was well established in the decided cases that in computing the time of ‘at least twenty-one days’ the first day of publication was included and the last day was excluded. This rule of computing time did not require ‘twenty-one clear days’ of publication. (State, ex rel., v. Wallace, 112 Kan. 264 , 210 Pac. 348 ; City of Wichita v. Robb, 163 Kan. 121 , 179 P. 2d 937 ; State, ex rel., v. Miami County Comm’rs, supra.) “The Miami case was decided in 1950. The amendment of the Jaw by the legislature was in 1951. The additional requirement in the statute that the first publication must be ‘not less than twenty-one days’ can only be construed to mean a legislative intent of twenty-one ‘clear days,’ thus abrogating the previous rule established by judicial interpretation of G. S. 1949, 72-3502. “The case at bar is one of first impression under the amended statute (G. S. 1955 Supp., 72-3541.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Baugh v. Rural High School District No. 5

2. ““The provisions of the foregoing statute requiring the first publication to be not less than twenty-one days prior to such election, are construed and held to mean that twenty-one clear days must intervene between the date of first publication in the newspaper and the date of the bond election. In computing the time both the first day of publication and the day of the election are to be excluded. The statutory rule of computation prescribed in G. S. 1949, 60-3819 and 3819a, which directs the exclusion of the first day and the inclusion of the last in computing the time within which an action is to be done, does not apply.” (Syl. 2.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Carson v. McDowell

3. ““ ‘. . . Notice of all such elections shall be given at least twenty-one days prior to the date of such election by posting printed or typewritten notices on the door .of each schoolhouse in the proposed district and by publishing the same twice in some newspaper published in each county in which the proposed district or any part of the proposed district lies, . . .’ (Emphasis ours.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Baugh v. Rural High School District No. 5