Haman v. Marsh’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Sierra Club v. Department of Transportation of the State (2009), Myers v. Nebraska Investment Council (2006)
55 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 Williams v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore Same · Etheridge v. Medical Center Hospitals · Prendergast v. Nelson · 125 Ill. 2d 230 - Bilyk v. Chicago Transit Authority · Republic Investment Fund I v. Town of Surprise
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Legislature shall not pass local or special laws . . . [g]ranting to any corporation, association, or individual any special or exclusive privileges, immunity, or franchise whatever.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“By definition, a legislative act is general, and not special, if it operates alike on all persons of a class or on persons who are brought within the relations and circumstances provided for and if the classification so adopted by the Legislature has a basis in reason and is not purely arbitrary.... General laws embrace the whole of a subject, with their subject matter of common interest to the whole state. Uniformity is required in order to prevent granting to any person, or class of persons, the privileges or immunities which do not belong to all persons.... It is because the legislative process lacks the safeguards of due process and the tradition of impartiality which restrain the courts from using their powers to dispense special favors that such constitutional prohibitions against special legislation were enacted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Huy Le v. Lautrup“First new industrials would have to be chartered. Second, they would have to become members of the [Nebraska Depository Institution Guaranty Corporation (NDIGC)] (or the only two industrials which presently exist would have to renounce their [Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)] coverage and become members of the NDIGC), and the deposits of those indust2'ials would have to be guaranteed by the NDIGC. Third, those industrials would have to go into receivership or bankruptcy. And, fourth, the depositors of those institutions would have to suffer deposit losses.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.