Kirkpatrick v. King’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably Bayh v. Sonnenburg (1991), Price v. State (1993)
34 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 Wayman v. Southard · Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes · Edward Prigg v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania · State v. Bryan · Louisville v. Savings Bank
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Notwithstanding any other provision hereof, the Sheriff of each county shall be elected in the general election held in the year 1950 and each four years thereafter. The term of office of each such Sheriff shall be four years beginning upon the first day of January next following his election . . ..” Art. 6, §2 thereof provides: “There shall be elected, in each county by the voters thereof, at the time of holding general elections, a Clerk of the Circuit Court, Auditor, Recorder, Treasurer, Sheriff, Coroner and Surveyor. . . .” (Emphasis supplied.) Art. 6, §9 thereof provides: “Vacancies in county, township, and town offices, shall be filled in such manner as may be prescribed by law.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““It has been suggested that the first words of the amendment, ‘Notwithstanding any other provision hereof,’ (italics supplied), are meaningless. The amendment is not to be considered as an isolated bit of design and color, but it must be seen as an integral part of the entire harmonious picture of the Constitution. It is true that it is superimposed upon that with which it is in direct conflict, but when the amendment is viewed in the light of these principles, there is no ambiguity. See Tucker v. State (1941), 218 Ind. 614 , 35 N. E. 2d 270 ; Griebel v. State ex rel. Niezer (1887), 111 Ind. 369 , 12 N. E. 700 ; Steele, etc. Co. v. Miller (1915), 92 Ohio St. 115 , 110 N. E. 648 [ L.R.A. 1916C, 1023 ]; State ex rel. Collins v. Jackson (1919), 119 Miss. 727 , 81 So. 1 ; 11 Am. Jur., §54, pp. 663, 664. The word ‘hereof’ refers to the constitution with its former fixing of the sheriff’s term at two years, as stated by §2 of Article 6, which is still in force as to officers other than sheriff. Griebel v. State ex rel. Niezer (1887), 111 Ind. 369 , 12 N. E. 700 , supra; 11 Am. Jur., §54, pp. 663, 664; 1 Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations 129 (8th Ed.).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ . . . We must presume that the General Assembly, and the voters who ratified the amendment, were aware of this situation [the lack of uniformity in the beginning of sheriff’s terms over the state], and it was their expressed intention not only to change the term of the office of sheriff from two years to four years, but also to establish a definite uniform cycle for the beginning and ending of all such terms throughout the 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.