Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 22 S.D. 146 - Morrow v. Wipf

Morrow v. Wipf’s Empirical Analysis

1908

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
10
states following
December 1978
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1978

20 state decisions — followed in 10 states

7019081910192019301940195019601970decided

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 Rouse v. Thompson · People ex rel. Breckon v. Board of Election Commissioners · State v. Morgan · Ladd v. Holmes · Britton v. Board of Election Commissioners

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

  1. ““The fact that part of a statute is unconstitutional does not authorize the court to adjudge the remainder void, unless the provisions are so interdependent that one cannot operate without the other, or so related in substance as to preclude the supposition that the Legislature would have passed one without the other. The question is not whether valid and invalid portions are closely related in a particular clause or section, but whether they are essentially and inseparately connected in substance. Where the unobjectionable portion is distinct and complete in itself and capable of being executed in accordance with the apparent legislative intent, wholly independent of that portion which is invalid, the former will be upheld.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “"To what extent, if at all, the rights of organized political parties should be recognized and regulated by law, is a matter of public policy, to be determined by the legislative department; a matter which does not concern this court. Its duty is done when it gives effect to the legislative will as expressed in statutes which do not conflict with any provision of the federal or state Constitution."”
    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.