Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 37 NEB 340 - Trumble v. Trumble

Trumble v. Trumble’s Empirical Analysis

1893

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
July 2024
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably Jay Burns Baking Co. v. Bryan (1924), State v. First National Bank of Anchorage (1982)

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 26 state decisions

6018931900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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.

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

  1. ““Is this act within the inhibition of that clause of the constitution providing that no bill shall contain more than one subject? This question is in most cases surrounded with difficulty. As was said in Kansas City & O. R. Co. v. Frey, 30 Neb. 790 , this clause of the constitution ‘was never designed to place the legislature in a strait jacket and prevent it from passing laws having but one object under an appropriate title.’ Provided the object of the law be single the whole law may be embraced in a single enactment, although it may require any number of details to accomplish the object. The purpose of the constitutional inhibition upon the other hand was to require each proposed measure to stand upon its own merits, and to apprise the members of the legislature of the purpose of the act when called upon to support or oppose it, and perhaps a still stronger purpose was to prohibit the joining of several measures in one act in order to combine the friends of each measure and pass the bill as a whole, where probably a majority' could not be procured in favor of any one of its different objects.””
    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.