Ball v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
104 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably American Beauty Homes Corp. v. Louisville & Jefferson County Planning & Zoning Commission (1964), Waters v. City of Birmingham (1968)
104 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 Leary v. Adams · 42 N.J. Super. 495 - Aldom v. Borough of Roseland · Nelson v. Donaldson · California Co. v. State Oil & Gas Board · Alabama Public Service Commission v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.
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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It is hardly necessary to comment on the meaning of a trial de novo. A trial de novo, within the common acceptation of that term, means that the case shall be tried in the Circuit Court as if it had not been tried before, and that that court may substitute its own findings and judgment for that of the lower tribunal. Or as stated in Thompson v. City of Birmingham, 217 Ala. 491, 492 , 117 So. 406, 407 [1928]: "`[W]hen an appeal is allowed by statute from the judgment of an inferior court to a superior court, where the case is to be tried de novo, ... a trial de novo means a new trial "as if no trial had ever been had, and just as if it had originated in the circuit court."' "See also, Vinyard v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 205 Ala. 269 , 87 So. 552 [1921]; California Co. v. State Oil & Gas Board, 200 Miss. 824 , 27 So.2d 542, 544 [1946]."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““A city or municipal corporation does not have the inherent power to enact and enforce zoning regulations. White v. Luquire Funeral Home, 221 Ala. 440 , 129 So. 84 [ (1930) ]; Leary v. Adams, 226 Ala. 472 , 147 So. 391 [ (1933) ]; Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board v. City of Birmingham, 253 Ala. 402 , 44 So.2d 593 [ (1950) ]. Municipal corporations were granted the power and authority to enact comprehensive zoning ordinances under Code 1940, Tit. 37, §§ 772-773.[ 9 ] This court in Marshall v. City of Mobile, 250 Ala. 646 , 35 So.2d 553 [ (1948) ], recognized the well-known rule that municipal authorities act in a legislative capacity in the enactment of zoning ordinances. Also, the amendment to a comprehensive zoning ordinance or a rezoning of a certain area ... becomes a part of the existing comprehensive ordinance and, a fortiori, is a legislative act. Phillips v. City of Homewood, 255 Ala. 180 , 50 So.2d 267 [ (1951) ].””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“in case of doubt or inconsistency between language in an enacting part of a statute and language in its title or preamble, the title or preamble controls,”
3 later decisions 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.