State ex rel. Thrash v. Lamb’s Empirical Analysis
1911
Citation profile
42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently August 1998 · most notably 85 Wash. 2d 1 - Campbell v. City of Bellevue (1975), State Ex Rel. Griffin v. Smith (1953)
42 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 State ex rel. Crow v. Canty · State ex rel. Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Williams · State ex rel. Circuit Attorney v. County Court · State ex rel. Brown v. McMillan · State ex rel. Boyd v. Rose
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Relators concede, on this record, for the purposes of this case, that they were conducting a sham restaurant, where, under the guise of a legitimate, licensed business, they were openly selling liquor in violation of law, and they point triumphantly, in oral argument,' to the fact that so far they have escaped conviction for such offense in the various criminal prosecutions heretofore instituted by the State. They concede, further, that their place of business, by reason of the illegal practices therein permitted, has become the resort of idlers and dissolute, immoral and dangerous persons, whose continuous disorderly conduct tends to the injury of the public morals, peace and welfare. Such conduct, as the court found, constituted a continuing public nuisance. The relators, without denying the facts alleged in the bill, or disputing seriously the conclusion that they constitute such nuisance, seek to separate the elements which, to- getter, constitute this nuisance, and insist that the court has no jurisdiction to enjoin either element so segregated. Relators’ propositions are that the court cannot lawfully enjoin (a) the commission of a crime, -i. e., the illegal sale of liquors, or (b) the business of conducting a restaurant. The State is seeking by means of injunction to close this place, not primarily because of the illegal sale of liquor, nor because of the operation of a sham restaurant. These things are pleaded as the facts which underlie the nuisance, namely, a disor”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“commence and prosecute all civil and criminal actions....”
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.