Hill v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis
1936
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently April 2016
14 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 Dinneen v. Rider · Sinking Fund Commissioners v. George · Talbott, Auditor of Pub. Accts. v. Laffoon, Gov. · City of Somerset v. Somerset Banking Co. · Rouse v. Johnson
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"(a) Section 51 of the Constitution restricts legislative enactments to one subject which `shall be expressed in the title.' Appellants rely upon the construction, often declared, that the title of an act must fairly and reasonably indicate its substance so as to impart notice of what it proposes to deal with. The time an enactment becomes operative as a law is not a part of the subject-matter. It is not necessary, therefore, under the Constitution that the title of an act should contain a statement to the effect that it is an emergency measure, or that the enactment is emergent. While the specific question is res integra with us, the validity could well be sustained upon numerous cases to the effect that details of an act need not be recited in the title. Talbott v. Laffoon, 257 Ky. 773 , 79 S.W.2d 244 . Where the question has been specifically passed upon, the uniform holding, so far as we are aware, has been that there need be no reference in the title of an act. 59 C.J. 808; Dinneen v. Rider, 152 Md. 343 , 136 A. 754 ; State v. Smith, 49 S.D. 106 , 206 N.W. 233 ; Wheelon v. South Dakota Land Settlement Board, 43 S.D. 551 , 181 N.W. 359 , 14 A.L.R. 1145 ; State v. Howell, 106 Wash. 542 , 181 P. 37 ; People v. Sterling Refining Co., 86 Cal.App. 558 , 261 P. 1080 ."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fletcher v. Bryant
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.