Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 229 U.S. 123 - City and County of Denver v. New York Trust Company No 642 City and County of Denver

City and County of Denver v. New York Trust Company No 642 City and County of Denver’s Empirical Analysis

229 U.S. 123 · 1913

Citation profile

232
cited by 232 later decisions
33
cited 33 times by the Supreme Court
14
states following
July 2024
most recently cited

79 federal appellate · 22 district · 33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 232 later decisions (33 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably Gully v. First Nat. Bank in Meridian (1936), Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. (1938)

79 federal appellate · 22 district · 33 state decisions — followed in 14 states

530191319201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedCity & County of Denver v. New York Trust Co. (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. · Tennessee v. Union & Planters' Bank · Albert Shulthis v. D a McDougal · Mast Foos Company v. Stover Manufacturing Company · United States Fidelity Guaranty Company Appt v. Mj Bray

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

  1. ““That section 264a was merely au amendment of the charter, and that the mode of its submission and adoption was in accord with the applicable restrictions of the state Constitution,” and “that the amendment supersedes protanto the original provisions of the charter with which it is not in accord. The purpose in adopting it was to introduce something new, to make a change in existing provisions, and being adopted conformably to the constitutional and charter requirements, the new or changed provisions became at once a part of the charter, thereby supplanting or modifying the original provisions to the extent of any conflict””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““In the briefs some reference is made to Speer v. People, 52 Colo. 325 ( 122 Pac. 768 ), where the supreme court of the state recently had before it a proposed amendment radically and extensively changing the form of the city government. The opinions rendered in the case disclose some differences of opinion upon the question whether what was proposed could be regarded as a mere amendment, but the question was not decided and nothing was said in the opinions that tends to sustain the objection now made to § 264a.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Besides, Article 20, § 4, of the state constitution then in force provided that no franchise relating to the streets of the city should be granted excépt upon a vote of the electors, and Article 9 of the city charter then in force made a like vote a prerequisite to the acquisition by the city of any public utility. So, had the council attempted by the ordinance of 1907 to make an election to purchase or to renew, the attempt would have gone for nothing.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.