Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 211 U.S. 45 - Berea College v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

Berea College v. Commonwealth of Kentucky’s Empirical Analysis

211 U.S. 45 · 1908

Citation profile

214
cited by 214 later decisions
43
cited 43 times by the Supreme Court
19
states following
December 2024
most recently cited

30 federal appellate · 15 district · 76 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 214 later decisions (43 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2024 · most notably Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. (1954), Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1936)

30 federal appellate · 15 district · 76 state decisions — followed in 19 states

4801908191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Joseph Lochner v. People of the State of New York · Strauder v. West Virginia · Slaughter-House Cases the Butchers' Benevolent Association of New Orleans v. The Crescent City Live · Field v. Clark

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

  1. “_ “As one section of a statute may be repugnant to the Constitution without rendering the whole act void, so, one provision of a section may be invalid by reason of its not conforming to the Constitution, while all the other provisions may be subject to no constitutional infirmity. One part may stand, while another will fall, unless the two are so connected, or dependent on each other in subject-matter, meaning or purpose, that the good cannot remain without the bad. The point is not whether the parts are contained in the same section, for the distribution into sections is purely artificial, but whether they are essentially and inseparably connected in substance,—whether the provisions are so interdependent that one cannot operate without the other.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““A power reserved to the Legislature to alter, amend or repeal a charter authorizes it to make any alteration or amendment of a charter granted subject to it, which will not defeat or substantially impair the object of the grant, or any rights vested under it, and which the Legislature may deem necessary to secure either that object or any public right. Commissioners on Inland Fisheries v. Holyoke Water Power Co., 104 Mass. 446 , 451 [ 6 Am. Rep. 247 ]; Holyoke Co. v. Lyman, 15 Wall. 500 , 522 [ 21 L. Ed. 133 ]; Close v. Glenwood Cemetery, 107 U. S. 466 , 476 [ 2 Sup. Ct. 267 , 27 L. Ed. 408 ].””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““It would be resting too much on mere form to hold that a statute which in effect works a change in the terms of the charter is not to be considered as an amendment, because not so designated.””
    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.