Coggins v. Ely’s Empirical Analysis
1921
Citation profile
58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently July 1985 · most notably Duhame v. State Tax Commission (1947), State v. Suess (1952)
58 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 Board of Control v. Buckstegge · Young v. Regents of University of Kansas · Hunt v. Mohave County · Gilbert v. Craddock · Matter of Application of Stephan
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““For the purpose of arriving at the intention, resort may be had to the words, the context, the subject-matter, the effects and consequences, the spirit and reason of the law, and other acts in pari materia. Sutherland, Statutory Construction (Lewis’ 2d Ed.) § 586. . . . “It is also elementary that we may determine the legislative intent from necessary implication as to what was intended. What is necessarily implied in a statute is as much a part of it as what is expressed. Speaking of this subject of necessary implication, the court, in the case of Gilbert v. Craddock [ 67 Kan. 346 , 72 Pac. 869 ], supra, says: “ ‘It (the implication) may be drawn from public policy; past acts; the entire terms, purposes, and scope of the act to be considered; the inconvenience, inconsistencies, and the absurdities involved in the contrary consideration; indeed, from all of the things found in the act, the conditions surrounding it, the history antedating it, the purposes to be accomplished by it, and the policy dictating it. . . . On the same subject, it is said in Sutherland on Statutory Construe tion, § 336; “ ... A necessary implication means not natural necessity, but so strong a probability of an intention that one contrary to that which is imputed to the party using the language cannot be supposed.” ’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““It is elementary that a court will not declare a law void for uncertainty or ambiguity, unless, after using every authorized means to ascertain and give the act an intelligent meaning, it is found impossible to clear up the doubt and dissolve the obscurity.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Roseberry“Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Arizona:”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Hubbs
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.