Conter, Treas. v. Post’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 state decisions

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

1. ““The remaining question is whether the trial court erred in holding that § 5 sets up ‘an arbitrary classification’ in excepting from its provisions all second class cities which own and operate a municipal water works and electric light plant. In our opinion the owning and operating,of a municipal water works and electric light plant furnishes sufficient basis for an exemption from the provisions of § 5. It is obvious that the ownership and operation of such plants would materially increase the burdens connected with the financial affairs of the city and would create financial problems peculiar to the government and business management of such cities. The additional work and special problems connected with the treasurer’s office would furnish sufficient reasons for the retention of the office of city treasurer. . . . The effect of excepting cities owning these plants would he to retain the office of city treasurer .... We think the section in this regard is not open to the objection that it sets up an arbitrary and unreasonable classification.” (My emphasis.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 121 Ind. App. 692 - State ex rel. McManamon v. Felger

2. ““. . . . It is perfectly clear that the legislative intent in § 195 was to abolish the office of city treasurer. But in providing for the performance of the duties of the office of city treasurer by the county treasurer almost the same language was employed as is used in the present act. In the act of 1905 the words ‘county treasurer of such county shall be, ex officio, treasurer of such city’ clearly were not intended to continue the office of city treasurer and to make the county treasurer, ex officio, a city officer holding the office of city treasurer, since the act expressly abolished that office. Also it is evident that treasurer as used in the phrase ‘treasurer of such city’ did not mean treasurer in the sense of an officer of the city, but merely indicated the nature of the functions which would devolve upon the county treasurer as a part of his duties as county treasurer. . . .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 121 Ind. App. 692 - State ex rel. McManamon v. Felger