Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 355 Ark. 163 - Landers v. Jameson

Landers v. Jameson’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
1
states following
April 2025
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 30 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Beebe v. Fountain Lake School District (2006), Craven v. Fulton Sanitation Service, Inc. (2005)

2 federal appellate · 30 state decisions

160200320102020decided

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 Mathews v. Eldridge · Fuentes v. Shevin · Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co. · Horton v. California · Flagg Brothers Inc v. Brooks J Lefkowitz

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

  1. “It is true that this court has said time and again that all issues raised or that could have been raised in a first appeal cannot be raised in a second appeal. But this court has never extended the doctrine [of law of the case] to require a prevailing party at the trial level to also obtain a ruling on a constitutional issue that may be an alternative reason to decide the matter in that party’s favor. Nor has this court required that same prevailing party to cross appeal as an appellee on that same non-essential constitutional ground, if and when the matter is appealed to an appellate court.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[i]t is not our role to discover the actual basis for the legislation. We merely consider whether there is any rational basis which demonstrates the possibility of a deliberate nexus with state objectives so that the legislation is not the product of arbitrary and capricious government purposes. If we determine that any rational basis exists, the statute will withstand constitutional challenge.”
    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.