Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 194 SW2D 1 - Moncus v. Raines

Moncus v. Raines’s Empirical Analysis

1946

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
October 1998
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently October 1998

1 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

30194619501960197019801990decided

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 Babb v. El Dorado · State v. White · McDonald v. Wasson · McFaddin v. Bell · Edwards v. Jackson

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

  1. ““There is no necessary or irreconcilable conflict between the two laws here involved. In the first the Legislature was dealing with the venue of suits to enforce liability for official misconduct of officers. Such misconduct may consist of many things, such as (in case of peace officers) failure properly to serve legal writs, false imprisonment, and, as in the case at bar, the wrongful or excessive use of force in making an arrest. The Legislature determined that such actions against officers, for obvious reasons of public policy, ought to be brought in the county where the cause of action originated. There is no invincible repugnancy between the two laws. Both may stand and be permitted to operate within their respective orbits, as prescribed by the Legislature.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Repeals by implication are not favored, and there are many instances in which particular statutes are held not to be repealed by implication. As a general rule, the legislature, when it intends to repeal a statute, may be expected to do so in express terms or by the use of words which are equivalent to an express repeal, and an intent to repeal by implication, to be effective, must appear clearly, manifestly, and with cogent force.””
    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.