Ricks v. Close’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently February 1983 · most notably Summerell v. Phillips (1971), Woodard v. Reily (1963)
42 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 Lynch v. United States · Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. · Dorchy v. State of Kansas · Poindexter v. Greenhow · Graham v. Jones
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As previously stated in this opinion, Acts Nos. 47, 48, and 384 of 1940 were all passed at the same session of the Legislature and were a part of the plan to reorganize the Executive Department and to establish a unified system of financial administration. The reorganization of the Executive Department and the establishment of a unified system of financial administration are dependent upon the changes sought to be made in the Constitution by Act No. 384 and are- framed in compliance with the proposed changes in the Constitution. The acts as well as the proposed amendment are inextricably interwoven, interrelated and dependent upon each other.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wall v. Close““Of course, there are cases where a statute may be valid in one respect and invalid in another. But they are cases where the two parts of the law are so distinct and separable that the court can conclude that the intention of the Legislature was that the valid provisions of the law should be enforced, without regard for the provisions declared invalid. If the objectionable and the unobjectionable provisions of a statute are not distinct and separable, to declare the one provision invalid and the other enforceable would be to substitute for the law as enacted one which the Legislature might not have been willing to enact.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““In fact, from a reading of Section 1(c) of Title II of Act No. 47 and Title IX of Act No. 48, the conclusion is inescapable that all other agencies are precluded from administering the financial affairs of the State. Without going into the various other provisions of the Act that might'be violative of the Constitution, it is sufficient to say that the Department of Finance, as so created, cannot be upheld, and since all other agencies are prohibited from administering the financial affairs of ' the State, Act.No. 48-is without effect.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wall v. Close
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.