State v. Lord’s Empirical Analysis
1896
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently August 1980 · most notably State Ex Rel. Burg v. City of Albuquerque (1926), Mountain States Legal Foundation v. Costle (1980)
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 44 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 United States v. Throckmorton · Sawyer · Board of Liquidation v. McComb · State ex rel. Attorney General v. Cunningam · Attorney General v. City of Eau Claire
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In many cases it is unquestionable that the head of an executive department may be required by judicial process to perform a legal duty, while in other cases, in our judgment, the courts would be entirely without jurisdiction; and, as regards such an officer, we should concede that the nature of the case and of the duty to be performed must determine the right of the court to interfere in each particular instance.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Putnam v. Norblad““It has been said that injunction and mandamus are correlative in their operation; that where one commands the other forbids; that where there is nonfeasance, mandamus compels the duty, and, where there is malfeasance, injunction will restrain. But this is so in manner only. Injunction is frequently mandatory, and mandamus sometimes operates as a restraint. ’ ’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Putnam v. Norblad“* * Wherever the established distinctions between equitable and common law jurisdiction are observed, * * * courts of equity have no authority or jurisdiction to interpose for the protection of rights which are merely political, 'and where no civil or property right is involved.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.