Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 196 Miss. 746 - Quitman County v. Turner

Quitman County v. Turner’s Empirical Analysis

1944

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
1
states following
June 2017
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 30 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably McCullen v. State Ex Rel. Alexander (1953), Sheffield v. Reece, Sheriff (1947)

2 federal appellate · 30 state decisions

16019441950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Gandy v. Pub. Serv. Corp. of Miss. · Roseberry v. Norsworthy · Zeigler v. Zeigler · Robertson, Rev. Agent v. Texas Oil Co. · Millwood v. State

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

  1. “It is our duty to support a construction which would purge the legislative purpose of any invalidity, absurdity, or unjust equality ... To this end, not only the language but the purpose and policy which the legislature had in view must be considered.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Legislative intent as an aid to statutory construction, although often elusive to the perception of unaided vision, remains nevertheless the pole star of guidance.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “no rule of statutory construction rests upon better reasoning than that in the revision of statutes, alteration of phraseology, the omission or addition of words, will not necessarily change the operation or construction of former statutes. The language of the statute as revised or the legislative intent to change the former statute must be clear before it can be pronounced that there is a change of such statute in construction and operation.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.