Save Our Streets v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably Montrose Christian School Corp. v. Walsh (2001), Atkinson v. Anne Arundel County (2012)
26 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 M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Ritchmount Partnership v. Board of Supervisors of Elections · Cheeks v. Cedlair Corp. · Jones v. State · Griffith v. Wakefield
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.
“[T]he ... [charter] amendments were not back-door attempts by the voters of [the c]ounties to enact detailed legislation. Nor did they divest the county councils of the ability to set the propeHy tax rates. Rather, each would have merely precluded a paHicular type of enactment by the legislative body, namely[] the power to collect propeHy taxes above the specified cap.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““[T]he length and detail of a proposed charter amendment are not dispositive as to whether the proposed amendment constitutes legislation or proper charter material. An important consideration is the degree to which the county council retains discretion and control regarding an area under its authority pursuant to Article XI-A of the Maryland Constitution.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘If the proposed Baltimore County Charter amendment had merely authorized the Baltimore County Council to enact a system of binding arbitration ... and if, pursuant to that authorization, the Baltimore County Council had exercised its discretion to enact an ordinance containing provisions similar to those in the proposed Charter amendment ..., the present case would be distinguishable from Cheeks .... In the present case, however, the proposed Charter amendment did not authorize the County Council to enact binding arbitration legislation for County employees. It did not authorize any decisions by the constitutional legislative body. Instead, under the proposal, the Charter itself would contain all of the law on the subject, and the Baltimore County Council would be deprived of all decision-making authority concerning the subject!.]’ ””
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.