Walker v. Johnson County’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently June 2018
10 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 Goldberg v. Kelly · Fuentes v. Shevin · Bell v. Burson · Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay View · A Quantity of Copies of Books v. Kansas
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under these circumstances, where no emergency exists and the determination of a nuisance lies only in the discretion of an administrative officer, the scales tip against unrestricted governmental action under the guise of police power and in favor of the due process notice and hearing requirements.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“There remains the question of the scope of this decision. Enactments may be constitutional in operation with respect to some persons and states of fact and unconstitutional as to others. An enactment may be limited to its valid applications. Under other circumstances involving a palpable health nuisance per se, or in a situation of clear and compelling emergency, the board’s ordinance might arguably function within the due process constitutional parameters where validity of state police power enactments are litigated. We do not decide that issue. We only decide the ordinance, in the case of Walker, operates unconstitutionally in violating due process ....”
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.