State ex rel. Applegate v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis
1909
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 71 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2004 · most notably Rose v. State of California (1942), Houck v. Little River Drainage District (1915)
2 federal appellate · 71 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 Duncan v. Missouri · Clark v. Kansas City, St. Louis & Chicago Railroad · State v. Taylor · State ex inf. Hadley v. Standard Oil Co. · State v. Bockstruck
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The sufficiency of the petition is next assailed because it did not contain a description of the lands to be embraced in the proposed district. It is a sufficient answer to that objection to state that the statute makes no such requirement. That and kindred matters are governed by other sections of the statutes, and by later proceedings to be had in the ease.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Fetzer v. Johnson“The power to issue the bonds in the first instance includes the power to recall and cancel them if they cannot be sold advantageously, and to reissue others in lieu thereof for the same purposes for which the first were issued, but they must, as before stated, conform to the law and be embraced within the act mentioned.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Johnson v. Underwood“Counsel for relators assail all of those matters and insist that they are null and void because the court after setting aside the order of appropriation and sale of the bonds was powerless to make the second order of appropriation and for sale of the bonds.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Johnson v. Underwood
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.