Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 223 ARK 159 - Martin v. Bratton

Martin v. Bratton’s Empirical Analysis

1954

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
February 1974
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Polk County v. Mena Star Co. · Cotham v. Coffman · Ladd v. Stubblefield · Jeffery, County Judge v. Trevathan · Lyons MacHinery Co. v. Pike County

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

  1. “"Counsel for appellees have cited us to no Statute or case — and our search has likewise failed to discover any — that allows the Quorum Court to turn over $20,000, or any other amount, to the County Judge `to use it as he sees fit and deems necessary'. That such an appropriation is not within the purview or spirit of our Statutes is shown by a study of § 17-412 and § 17-414 Ark. Stats. These provisions clearly envision (1) that all appropriations by the Quorum Court must be for a specific purpose allowed by law; (2) that after the appropriation is made, then any allowance of a claim against that appropriation must be by the County Court and not by the County Judge ; and (3) that the County Court order of allowance must specify the appropriation against which the claim is allowed before the money can be drawn out of the Treasury. Although the County Judge presides over the County Court, it is the County Court that makes the order of allowance, and not the County Judge. Art. 7, § 28 of the Constitution so provides. See also Lyons Mach. Co. v. Pike County, 192 Ark. 531 , 93 S.W.2d 130 . In the case at bar, the Quorum Court by its appropriation of the $20,000 `to allow the County Judge to use it as he sees fit and deems necessary', attempted to entirely by-pass the functions of the County Court, because the appropriation was to be used by the County Judge, rather than by the County Court." Id., 223 Ark., at 161-162, 264 S.W.2d at 636 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “... from the County General Fund to allow the County Judge to use it as he sees fit and deems necessary.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “. . . to defray such other expenses of county government as are allowed by laws of this State.”
    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.