Brown v. Knox County’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 1975
8 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 Hunter v. Conner · Continental Jewelry Co. v. Cunningham · Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. City of Chattanooga · Clark v. State Ex Rel. Bobo · Southern Photo & Blue Print Co. v. Gore
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[1] We think the Chancellor’s conclusion is well supported by our cases, and that where, as here, there is a repeal or amendment by implication, there is no violation of section 17, Art. II, although no reference is made in the caption or body of the Act to Acts repealed or amended. The former Acts are affected only so far as they may be irreconcilable or inconsistent with the Act under review. Since there is no expression in the Act under review that it was a repealing or amendatory Act, it is clear that if former laws are repealed or amended by it, this is effected by necessary implication. Many of our cases have dealt with the question of the application of Art. II, sec. 17 of the Constitution, to repeals by implication and these cases all stem from the classic opinion by Judge Cooper in Home Ins. Co. v. Taxing District, 72 Tenn. 644 . In that decision, which has since been followed and cited, he said: ‘If this construction be inadmissible, the second Act is incompatible with the first, and does repeal it by necessary implication. The question in this-view is squarely raised, whether implied repeals are within the purview of the constitutional provision (Art. II, sec. 17). . That the constitutional provision under consideration does not apply to repeals by implication seems to be sustained by reason, as it certainly is by authority. 72 Tenn. pages 647 and 652. When, under an appropriate caption, an Act of the Legislature on its face plainly discloses its whole effect and ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Martin v. State“The Legislature shall have power to provide for the appointment of an additional number of Justices of the Peace in incorporated towns.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hyden v. Baker
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.