Sanitary District v. . Prudden’s Empirical Analysis
1928
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently July 2019
10 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.
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.
“It is a matter of common knowledge that odor from human excrement in a fairly thickly settled community will affect all around, the shifting wind makes it offensive in the entire district. The water and sewer eliminates this condition not only the annoyance, but the danger that comes from the fly feeding on filth and carrying the germ and thus pollute and poison food and drink. A water and sewer system eliminates the breeding places. It is a well known medical fact that filth breeds typhoid fever and the fly carries the germ. See Storm v. Wrightsville Beach , [ 189 N.C. 679 , 128 S.E. 17 (1925) ]. ... Water, sewer, drainage and screening have been of untold value to the human family.”
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.