Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 219 Ind. 362 - Draper v. Zebec

Draper v. Zebec’s Empirical Analysis

1941

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
1
states following
September 2007
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently September 2007 · most notably Johnson v. St. Vincent Hospital, Inc. (1980), Picadilly, Inc. v. Raikos (1991)

5 federal appellate · 26 state decisions

901941195019601970198019902000decided

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 Rose v. State · Stiers v. Mundy · Cain v. Allen · State v. Bowers · Brandon v. State

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

  1. ““We think, therefore, that, as before stated, the subject of the eleventh section of the old statute was in relation to the jurisdiction of the Court; and as the subject of the statute under consideration was an increase of the jurisdiction of that Court, the whole of said act upon that subject was properly included under the title set forth; and that the whole of the enactment, in that respect, is an amendment of that section, expressed, it is true, in a very inartificial, bungling, and awkward form, but conforming substantially to the constitutional requirement.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Under the decisions of this court the mere fact that the proviso of the amendatory act of 1901, supra, refers to matters not germane to the subject-matter of the particular section it purports to amend does not render it unconstitutional and void, if the subject-matter incorporated in the amendment is within the purview and-is. germane to the title of the act amended.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““In the discussion the court concerned itself only with the question of whether or not criminal jurisdiction came within the purview of section 11 of the original act. There would have been no concern with this question unless the amending act, having provided that its purpose was to amend section 11 only, must be limited in its operation to the purview of section 11.””
    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.