State v. Earley’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
16
cited by 16 later decisions
3
states following
July 1975
most recently cited
16 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on State v. Stephenson · State of Kansas v. Killion · State v. Smith · Konitz v. Board of County Commissioners · State ex rel. Smith v. McCombs
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““No bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title. . . .” The reason for this clause was explained in State v. Earley, 192 Kan. 144 , 386 P. 2d 221 : “The purpose of the title is [to] call attention to the contents of the bill so members of the Legislature and the general public may be fairly informed as to what the Act implies. . . . “It is not necessary that the title be an index, a synopsis or abstract of the entire Act in all its details. It is sufficient if the title indicates clearly, though in general terms, the scope of the act. . . . “The more general the language of the title the broader the subject matter of the Act may be, due reference being given to the requirements of Article 2, Section 16, that the subject matter be clearly expressed in the title. . . .” (pp. 149-150.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Campbell
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.