Perry v. Jordan’s Empirical Analysis
1949
Citation profile
112 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 112 later decisions — most recently January 2012 · most notably 38 Cal. 3d 301 - People v. Castro (1985), 5 Cal. 3d 1 - Sail'er Inn, Inc. v. Kirby (1971)
112 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 27 Cal. 2d 840 - Lord v. Garland · 32 Cal. 2d 330 - McFadden v. Jordan · Heron v. Riley · 22 Cal. 2d 304 - Lincoln v. Superior Court of L.A. Cty. · Buelke v. Levenstadt
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 112 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“All those things obviously pertain to any plan single subject of aid to the needy aged and blind. They are merely administrative details.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“... [W]e are of the view that the [single-subject] provision is not to receive a narrow or technical construction in all cases, but is to be construed liberally to uphold proper legislation, all parts of which are reasonably germane. [Citation.] The provision was not enacted to provide means for the overthrow of legitimate legislation. [Citation.] [¶] Numerous provisions, having one general object, if fairly indicated in the title, may be united in one act. Provisions governing projects so related and interdependent as to constitute a single scheme may be properly included within a single act. [Citation.] The legislature may insert in a single act all legislation germane to the general subject as expressed in its title and within the field of legislation suggested thereby. [Citation.] ... A provision which conduces to the act, or which is auxiliary to and promotive of its main purpose, or has a necessary and natural connection with such purpose is germane within the rule....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“test previously developed by earlier decisions construing a similar single-subject restriction applicable to legislation (see Cal. Const., art. IV, § 9). We quoted with approval the following language from an earlier opinion in which we had upheld the legislative adoption of the Probate Code in a single enactment:”
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.