Atkins v. . McAden’s Empirical Analysis
1949
Citation profile
47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently August 1992 · most notably Constantian v. Anson County (1956), Coggins v. City of Asheville (1971)
47 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 School Commissioners v. Board of Aldermen & Treasurer · Venable v. School Committee of Pilot Mountain · Johnson v. . Marrow · Board of Education v. . Forrest · Board of Education v. . Pegram
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““does not place a limitation upon the legal right to transfer or allocate funds from one project to another within the general purpose for which bonds were issued. The inhibition contained in the statute is to prevent funds obtained for one general purpose [from] being transferred and used for another general purpose. For example, the statute prohibits the use of funds derived from the sale of bonds to erect, repair and equip school buildings from being used to erect or repair a courthouse or a county home or similar project.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“1. The board of education must, by resolution, request the reallocation of funds ánd apprise the county commissioners of the conditions which bring about the needs for the transfer. 2. The commissioners must then investigate the facts upon which the . . . request is made. 3. After making their investigation, the commissioners must, by resolution, record their findings upon their official minutes and authorize or reject the proposed reallocation of funds. If the commissioners find (1) that, since the bonds were authorized, conditions have so changed that the funds are no longer necessary for the original purpose, or that the proposed new project will eliminate the necessity for the originally-contemplated expenditure and better serve the educational interests of the district involved, or that the law will not permit the original purpose to be accomplished in the manner intended, and (2) that the total proposed expenditure for the changed purpose is not excessive, but is necessary in order to maintain the constitutional school term, the commissioners may then legally reallocate the funds in accordance with the request from the board of education. Without such affirmative findings, however, the commissioners have no authority to transfer funds previously allocated to another purpose. And, without authority from the commissioners, the county board of education itself has no power to reallocate the funds. Here, defendant School Board has strictly followed the appropriate procedure”
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.