Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 220 Ark. 925 - Bradley v. Hall

Bradley v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis

1952

Citation profile

61
cited by 61 later decisions
2
states following
October 2024
most recently cited

61 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably Sloan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1957), Leigh v. Hall (1960)

61 state decisions

17019521960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Hare v. General Contract Purchase Corp. · Westbrook v. McDonald · Pafford v. Hall · Sturdy v. Hall, Secretary of State · Clinton v. Morrow

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

  1. “any misleading tendency, whether of amplification, of omission, or of fallacy,”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “It is evident that before determining the sufficiency of the present ballot title we must first ascertain what changes in the law would be brought about by the adoption of the proposed amendment. For the elector, in voting upon a constitutional amendment, is simply making a choice between retention of the existing law and the substitution of something new. It is the function of the ballot tide to provide information concerning the choice that he is called upon to make. Hence the adequacy of the tide is direcdy related to the degree to which it enlightens the voter with reference to the changes that he is given the opportunity of approving. Id. at 927”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[POPULAR NAME] MAXIMUM RATE OF INTEREST CONTROLLED BY TWO-THIRDS VOTE OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY. [BALLOT TITLE] AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE XIX, SECTION 13 OF THE 1874 CONSTITUTION TO PROVIDE THAT THE MAXIMUM RATE OF INTEREST SHALL NOT EXCEED 10 PERCENT EXCEPT BY LAW ENACTED BY TWO-THIRDS VOTE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY; TO MAKE IT A CRIME KNOWINGLY TO CHARGE MORE THAN THE MAXIMUM RATE OF INTEREST AND TO ALLOW PERSONS PAYING MORE THAN THE MAXIMUM TO RECOVER TWICE THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST PAID. [PROPOSED AMENDMENT] BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS THAT THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION: `Section 1. Section 13 of Article XIX of the Arkansas Constitution of 1874 be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: `Section 13. Interest. The General Assembly shall control, regulate and classify interest and set maximum effective rates thereof. The maximum rate of interest collected shall not exceed ten (10) percent per annum unless otherwise provided by law enacted by affirmative vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the membership of each house of the General Assembly. Contracts in excess of the maximum rate shall be void as to principal and interest unless otherwise provided by law. Provided, in any event: (1) a person who knowingly charges interest in excess of the maximum rate shall be guilty of a crime; and (2) a person who has paid interest in excess of the maximum rate may recover not less than twice the amount of interest paid, within the time provided ”
    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.