Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 221 ARK 286 - Steward v. Rust

Steward v. Rust’s Empirical Analysis

1952

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
5
states following
July 1987
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently July 1987

8 state decisions

201952196019701980decided

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 Village of Altamont v. Baltimore · Meade v. Dane County · City of Green Bay v. Brauns · Van Hovenberg v. Holman · Hill v. Rector

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.

  1. “Appellee says that, under the authority of Hill v. City of Rector, 161 Ark. 574 , 256 S.W. 848 , the election was void because no resolution was first presented. This case, however, does not define a “resolution.” In our opinion a resolution, particularly when used to express a ministerial act by a deliberative body, need not partake of any definite form and need not be a written instrument. This Court, in Allen v. Morton, 94 Ark. 405 , 127 S.W. 450 , which involved the election of a treasurer of the University of Arkansas pursuant to a state statute, used this language: Correctly speaking, his selection is an appointment. It is immaterial how he may be appointed if he is selected by a majority of the board at a meeting authorized by law to do so. The mode of selection does not make it more or less than an appointment by the board.”
    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.