Austin v. Manning’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently February 2020
8 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 Jernigan v. Harris · State v. McKinley · Watkins v. Eureka Springs · McCutchen v. Siloam Springs · Arkansas Utilities Co. v. City of Paragould
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.
““Section 23 does not i>rohibit the legislative drafting technique of cross-reference to other statutes governing related matters not actually ‘revived, amended * * * extended or conferred’ by the particular enactment. ‘Such legislation, known as a reference statute, is quite common, and is uniformly upheld. It refers to another statute to regulate the procedure to make its provisions effective, and legislation would be very cumbersome and difficult if such acts were not held valid.’ Jernigan v. Harris, 187 Ark. 705, 710 , 62 S. W. 2d 5, 7 . See Watkins v. Eureka Springs, 49 Ark. 131 , 4 S. W. 384 ; State v. McKinley, 120 Ark. 165 , 179 S. W. 181 ; Potashnick Local Truck System, Inc., v. Fikes, 204 Ark. 924 , 165 S.W. 2d 615 . The quoted reference in Act 71 to the election provisions of Amendment 13 was both permissible and effective.””
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.