Commonwealth v. Barnett’s Empirical Analysis
1901
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 5 district · 125 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 139 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably Fergus v. Russel (1915), City of Philadelphia v. Commonwealth (2003)
4 federal appellate · 5 district · 125 state decisions — followed in 21 states
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 John Voorhees v. James Jackson · Commonwealth v. Griest · North Chicago Electric Railway Co. v. Peuser · State v. Holder · Deihm v. Snell
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 139 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Governor shall have power to disapprove of any item or items of any bill, making appropriations of money, embracing distinct items, and the part or parts of the bill approved shall be the law, and the item or items of appropriation disapproved shall be void, unless repassed according to the rules and limitations prescribed for the passage of other bills over the Executive veto.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whether the proposed law is necessary or expedient, whether it is constitutional, whether it is so framed as to accomplish its intent . . . are questions transferred from the two houses to . . . [the executive], with the bill itself. * * $ Suppose . . . that, instead of the beneficiaries being worthy public institutions, the city . . . had been directed to pay part of its appropriation to a sectarian school, in violation of the express prohibition in [the state constitution]. It would have been the Governor’s imperative duty to veto such appropriation and the legislature could not coerce him by putting him to the alternative of approving it or disapproving the entire section ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The party exempt from jurisdiction may waive his personal privilege, and if he does so the jurisdiction of the court is complete. Thus if the defendant is not duly served with process, or is a nonresident beyond the reach of process, or if served while temporarily exempt as a juror or party or witness, or member of the legislature, the proceeding as to him will be void or voidable on showing the facts. But if he waives his exemption and appears voluntarily, the jurisdiction of the court over him is thereafter beyond question.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Baker v. Baker
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.