Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 294 Ky. 837 - Mannini v. McFarland

Mannini v. McFarland’s Empirical Analysis

1943

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
1
states following
August 2014
most recently cited

33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently August 2014 · most notably Dieruf v. Louisville & Jefferson County Board of Health (1947), Miles v. Shauntee (1983)

33 state decisions

8019431950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Commonwealth v. Kentucky Jockey Club · Klein v. City of Louisville · James v. Barry · Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co. v. Meek · Droege v. McInerney

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

  1. “[T]he classification of fourth class cities set up in the statute has no reasonable relation to the purpose of the statute. There appears to be no rational basis for assuming that the sale of beer in a poolroom in Danville is fraught with other or different consequences than a similar sale in the nearby fifth class city of Stanford or the somewhat more distant second class city of Lexington. The General Assembly could by a general act legislate on this question or authorize cities thus to legislate but the subject of the Act is one of general application and the classification on which it rests is contrary to constitutional provisions forbidding local or special legislation.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"Thus, a classification according to population and its density, and according to the division of cities into classes, is not a natural and logical classification and cannot be sustained unless the act pertains to the organization or government of cities and towns or is incident thereto, or unless the classification has a reasonable relation to the purpose of the Act. " (emphasis added) Id. at 632.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““The General Assembly shall not indirectly enact any special or local acts by the repeal in part of a general act, or by exempting from a general act any city, town, district, or county; .. .. ””
    1 later decision 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.