Barker v. St. Louis County’s Empirical Analysis
1937
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 82 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably 18 Ill. 2d 11 - Molitor v. Kaneland Community Unit District No. 302 (1959), State v. Duren (1977)
2 federal appellate · 82 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 Great Northern Ry Co v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co · Douglass v. County of Pike · Tidal Oil Co. v. Flanagan · Kincaid v. City of Seattle · State Ex Rel. May Department Stores Co. v. Haid
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he Constitution survives and the act[s] fall[].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“We hold that the effect of the present decision, holding section 7840, R. S.1929 (Mo.St.Ann. § 7840, p. 6740), void in part, and overruling the Petet Case, in so far as it conflicts with our ruling here, shall be prospective only and not retroactive, except as to plaintiff. He has borne the burden of bringing about a result which will, in the future, give assurance to the property owner that his property cannot be taken for public use except by compliance with section 21, art. 2, of the Constitution, or by adverse possession for the prescriptive period.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“What we say here has no effect on cases where a landowner, by some affirmative action, waives his right to compensation or is barred by the general statute of limitation. In view of the very clear and mandatory directions of our Constitution on taking private property for public use, we do not think that the twenty days’ provision in section 7840, R.S.1929 (Mo.St.Ann. § 7840, p. 6740), can be said to be a statute of limitations in such sense as to bar a landowner who fails to file a claim within the time prescribed.”
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.