State v. Nelson’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently April 2013 · most notably Vaughn v. Murray (1974), Van Sickle v. Shanahan (1973)
56 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
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 501
Relies on 41 Wash. 2d 133 - State Ex Rel. Evans v. Brotherhood of Friends · State ex rel. Beck v. Fox Kansas Theatre Co. · Board of County Commissioners v. Brown · Greater Loretta Imp. Ass'n v. State Ex Rel. Boone · State v. Brown
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The constitutionality of a statute or an amendment to the Constitution should be considered in an action where it is necessary in order to determine the merits of tire action or where the issues cannot be intelligently decided without doing so, notwithstanding tire failure of tire parties to raise tire constitutional question, failure to plead the question, or failure to present the question to the district court.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““‘Although this constitutional provision was undoubtedly borrowed from states previously admitted to statehood, it is apparent that the framers of the constitution of this state conscientiously determined that prohibiting lotteries forever was a method of promoting a sound basis for the welfare and growth of this state. Since its adoption, many efforts have been made by persons and organizations to circumvent this constitutional provision. Such efforts have generally been made for profit, seeking to elicit money from those who cannot refrain from the instinctive weakness of humanity to gamble. “ ‘This court has steadfastly adhered to the constitutional provision by striking down such efforts....’””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Although a constitution is usually a declaration of principles of fundamental law, many of its provisions being only commands to the legislature to enact laws to carry out the purposes of the framers of the constitution, it is entirely within the power of those who establish and adopt the constitution to make any of its provisions self-executing ... Prohibitory provisions in a constitution are self-executing to the extent that anything done in violation of them is void. " It is the function and duty of this court to define constitutional provisions. The definition should achieve a consistency so that it shall not be taken to mean one thing at one time and another thing at another time. It is the nature of the judicial process that the construction becomes equally as controlling upon the legislature of the state as the provisions of the constitution itself. " (p. 445.) (Emphasis added.)”
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.