Oates v. Rogers’s Empirical Analysis
1940
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently February 2015 · most notably Galloway v. Truesdell (1967), Fulkerson v. Refunding Board of Arkansas (1941)
30 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 O'Donoghue v. United States · Springer v. Government of the Philippine Islands Agoncillo · Beasley v. Ridout · City of Terre Haute v. Evansville & Terre Haute Railroad · Nixon v. Allen
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The great ordinances of the constitution do not establish and divide fields of black and white. Even the more specific of them are found to terminate in a penumbra shading gradually from one extreme to the other.... It does not seem to need argument to show that however we may disguise it by veiled words we do not and cannot carry out the distinction between legislative and executive action with mathematical precision and divide the branches into watertight compartments, were it ever so desirable to do so, which I am far from believing that it is, or that the constitution requires."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“§ 1. Departments of government. The powers of the government of the State of Arkansas shall be divided into three distinct departments, each of them to be confided to a separate body of magistracy, to wit: Those which are legislative to one, those which are executive to another, and those which are judicial to another.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Our system, providing as it does for distinct separation of departments, did not in its inception contemplate a blending of authority; and overlapping must not be permitted now at the command of expediency or in response to the nod of convenience.”
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.