Rose v. Elliott County’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

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

1. ““It is clear that the Legislature in adopting, and this court in construing, the act supra, intended that it should be followed in every respect. In the Fox Case, supra [Fox v. Boyle County, 245 Ky. 27, 31 , 53 S. W. (2d) 192, 194 ], and in the first Randolph Case [Randolph v. Shelby County, 257 Ky. 297 , 77 S. W. (2d) 961 ], we held that the proposed bond issue must be approved by a court of competent jurisdiction; that the items of outstanding indebtedness created or existing during the period in which the debts were incurred and intended to be covered, must be specifically set forth, and said: ‘Under the new statute, the approval of the court cannot be obtained unless the facts affecting the constitutional validity of the proposed bond issue are presented.’ “The purpose and effect of the statute are set forth in the first Stratton Case [Stratton v. Jessamine County, 257 Ky. 302 , 77 S. W. (2d) 955 ] as follows: ‘The sections of the Statutes, supra, were enacted in order to curb a reckless disposition on the part of some fiscal courts of the various counties of the commonwealth, and to further guarantee that they confine the expenditures of their counties within constitutional bounds, and nothing less than a good faith substantial compliance therewith should be approved.’ In the same case we also said: ‘In order for such items of expenditure to be valid two facts must concur, i. e., (a) that the purpose for which the expenditure was agreed to be made was an obligation that ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fiscal Court of Lincoln Co. v. Lincoln Bd. of Ed.