Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 342 SW3D 299 - Schaefer v. Koster

Schaefer v. Koster’s Empirical Analysis

2011

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

13 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Wilkes v. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commission · Missouri Soybean Ass'n v. Missouri Clean Water Commission · State v. Olinghouse · Parktown Imports, Inc. v. Audi of America, Inc. · Hammerschmidt v. Boone County

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

  1. “No action alleging a procedural defect in the enactment of a bill into law shall be commenced, had or maintained by any party later than the adjournment of the next full regular legislative session following the effective date of the bill as law, unless it can be shown that there was no party aggrieved who could have raised the claim within that time. In the latter circumstance, the complaining party must establish that he or she was the first person aggrieved or in the class of first persons aggrieved, and that the claim was raised not later than the adjournment of the next full regular legislative session following any person being aggrieved. In no event shall an action alleging a procedural defect in the enactment of a bill into law be allowed later than five years after the bill or the pertinent section of the bill which is challenged becomes effective.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “Another argument in favor of striking down the entire bill as unconstitutional is motivated by a desire to protect the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary. Since legislation is often the result of much debate and political tradeoffs, if a judge takes away only one provision of a bill, presumably, at least one legislator would be upset. In fact, if this provision were excised prior to passage, the bill might not have had enough support to garner enough votes to pass. Therefore, if the courts sever only a portion of a bill, they may be subverting the legislative process and allowing legislation that might not have received enough votes to become law.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “The trial court is afforded wide discretion in administering the provisions of the declaratory judgment act.”
    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.