Bolan v. Boyle’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently March 2021
17 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 Glup v. CITY OF OMAHA THROUGH COTTAGE · Moell v. Mennonite Deaconess Home & Hospital, Inc. · Riedy v. Riedy · Schmitt v. City of Omaha · Bolan v. Boyle
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Generally, before a court may acquire jurisdiction over a claim against a city of the metropolitan class, the procedures set out in § 14-804 [filing a verified claim with the city comptroller] must be followed. . . . No evidence showing that plaintiffs followed the procedures set out in § 14-804 was presented to the district court. Jurisdiction did not attach in the district court, and, therefore, this court has no jurisdiction to consider the matter further. [Citations omitted.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Before any claim against the city ... is allowed, the claimant or his agent or attorney shall verify the same by his affidavit.... All claims against the city must be filed with the city comptroller. When the claim of any person against the city is disallowed, in whole or in part, by the city council, such person may appeal from the decision of said city council to the district court of the same county, as provided in section 14-813.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Litigants cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction on a judicial tribunal by either acquiescence or consent. [Citation omitted.] In Coffelt’s case the district court never acquired jurisdiction regarding the second cause of action [breach of contract] contained in Coffelt’s petition. Consequently, this court, as well, has no jurisdiction to review any issue raised in the second cause of action contained in Coffelt’s petition.”
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.