Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 288 ILL 327 - Mitchell v. Lowden

Mitchell v. Lowden’s Empirical Analysis

1919

Citation profile

65
cited by 65 later decisions
11
states following
October 1977
most recently cited

4 district · 61 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently October 1977 · most notably Reif v. Barrett (1933), 3 Ill. 2d 218 - People v. Illinois Toll Highway Commission (1954)

4 district · 61 state decisions — followed in 11 states

2001919192019301940195019601970decided

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 People v. McBride · Owners of Lands v. People ex rel. Stookey · Cicero Lumber Co. v. Town of Cicero · People ex rel. State Board of Health v. Apfelbaum · County of Perry v. County of Jefferson

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

  1. ““The objection is made that this section is an assumption of debts of the counties whose roads are so used (as a part of the State road system) and discharges their inhabitants from their proportionate share of the State taxes, and so violates section 20 of article 4 and section 6 of article 9 of the Constitution. Section 10 merely provides for the payment by the State of the cost of a road of which it takes control as a part of the State-wide system. The State assumes no debt but pays in cash for what it purchases, and the county may use the money to construct or improve its other roads, or, at its option, in the payment of its bonds issued to improve its State-aid roads. The taxes of the inhabitants of the county for the construction of a State-wide system of roads will not be affected in any way. The county will merely be paid for the cost it has paid for the road taken (over into the State-wide system.)””
    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.