State Ex Rel. Cope v. Davidson County’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
December 2014
most recently cited
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently December 2014
14 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.
Relationships
Relies on Southern v. Beeler, Atty.-Gen. · Board of Com'rs v. Obion County · 5 Smith & H. 394 - Trice v. McGill · Powers v. Vinsant · Kennedy v. Montgomery County
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.
“Section 13, Code 2417.188, reads as follows: Section 13. Be it further enacted, That each and every non-equalizing county in this State shall levy not more than one tax for current school operating purposes for all grades, one through twelve (or such of these grades as may be included in the local school program), and the County Trustee shall place in one fund, separate and apart from all other funds coming into his hands, all current school revenues received from County and State sources for school purposes, and all local school funds raised or collected by any county participating in State school funds shall be apportioned by the County Trustee to the county, cities, and special school districts therein, on the basis of the average daily attendance maintained by each in grades one through twelve during the preceding school year. [[Image here]] The tax resolution of the County Court among other things contained: Public School Fund * * .23 (7c of the levy for Public School Fund of $1.23 shall be allocated and placed to the credit of Rural School Building and Repair Fund and used exclusively for that purpose.) This appropriation of the 7<t for rural school building and repair fund was attacked in the [complaint] of the City. If the 7<t levy is taken from the $1.23 there would only be left $1.16 in which the complainant would share because these cities in the non-equalizing counties do not share in special appropriations for school buildings and repair. The Chancellor hel”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The repair of school buildings and their equipment is an important item of expense in any educational program. School buildings must be kept in a reasonable state of repair and cannot be made dependent upon average daily attendance of students. Now in the instant case the quarterly court levied a special tax for this purpose, that is, to repair and equip rural schools. We think the learned chancellor was in error in holding that the fund raised from this special tax should be regarded as a part of elementary school funds and subject to division with the City of Knoxville based upon the average daily attendance. An elementary school fund that is subject to division between the' county and city is raised from the special tax of 69 cents, as provided for in the foregoing itemized budget. It is subject to distribution as provided by Code section 2348(5) ... The quarterly county court cannot lawfully levy a special tax for the repair and maintenance, or the erection, of rural schools and use it for some other purpose and thereby avoid the division with the city as provided by the foregoing section of the Code. It must be kept separate and apart from all other school funds. We hold therefore the foregoing section of the Code does not apply to a fund raised from a special tax for the repair and upkeep of rural school buildings in the county.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The mere fact that by the resolution, the money was passed through the elementary school fund prior to its disbursement to the teachers did not change the nature of the money or make it legally a part of the elementary school fund. It was and remained a part of the county’s ‘General Fund,’ which by an unauthorized and ultra vires resolution of the county court, was diverted from ■the legitimate purpose for which, the county taxes which made it up, had been levied and collected. *w vr w V? vr "ft* ‘ ‘ The fact that the county court made an unauthorized gift of county funds to the county school teachers, can be no basis for complainants to demand that a court of equity decree a further unauthorized raid on the county treasury for their benefit. “We hold that the Chancellor correctly sustained the demurrer and dismissed the bill, because the bill shows on its face that neither the County of Obion, J. H. Shore, Trustee, nor any of the other defendants are legally indebted to the complainants * *”
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.