Boswell v. Chambless’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Defendant argues that since the plaintiffs admitted that the sewer tax warrants were valid and not subject to attack after sixty days, they in effect conceded the validity of the entire proceedings in the matter of construction of the sewer, including the assessments as made, and for that reason could not state a cause of action against the city in the former case. But we see in this no admission that would relieve the city of the obligation to pay that portion of the costs of the project which the statute plainly says it must pay. The city was not without authority to construct the sewer system according to the plan adopted and followed, but it could not unload its share of the expense onto the property owners of the district without their consent. The trial court in the former case held that they had neither consented to such assessment nor waived their right to object thereto. At the former trial the court found that nothing appeared on the face of the sewer proceeding to warn the property owners that the costs of mains and sub-mains were being assessed against their property, and that settles that issue.” (Emphasis supplied.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Garfield Inv. Corp. v. City of Enid

2. ““Looking at the statutes we find that sewers are classified as public, district, and private (sec. 6044 [11 O.S.1951 § 271]), and that mains and sub-mains are considered public sewers (sec. 6046 [11 O.S.1951 § 273]). There is no statutory exception to this latter classification. That portion of a system of sewers which serves as an out-let for the laterals can be classified in no other way than as a main or sub-main, and therefore a public sewer is distinguished from a district sewer. * * * ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Garfield Inv. Corp. v. City of Enid