Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 258 ALA 352 - Calhoun County v. Morgan

Calhoun County v. Morgan’s Empirical Analysis

1952

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
March 2011
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 2011

10 state decisions

601952196019701980199020002010decided

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. Wilkinson v. Allen · First Nat. Bank v. Smith · Gray v. Johnson · Houston County v. Covington · Commissioner's Court of Winston County v. State Ex Rel. County Highway Commission

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

  1. “"We agree of course that it is often true that a feature of an act may be stricken because it violates some constitutional requirement, such as section 45, for not being included in the title. That is not the nature of section 106 of the Constitution. The failure to observe that requirement does not invalidate a portion of the act, but all of it. Section 106 directs the Court to pronounce void every such law which the journals do not affirmatively show was passed in accordance with it. This does not mean to declare void parts or provisions of a law which were not included as required. We have found no case which struck out of a local law a feature of it because not included in the publication as required. In all of our cases applying section 106 . . . the inquiry has been whether the entire act was void."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"The publication of the act in extenso does not serve to cause every feature of it to be matter of substance which would otherwise be considered mere matter of detail.... The essence of the inquiry is whether the change from the proposal as published in extenso is material. This principle does not prohibit changes which are not material."”
    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.