Kidd v. McCanless’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2012 · most notably Baker v. Carr (1962), Reynolds v. Sims (1964)
8 federal appellate · 28 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 Smiley v. Holm · State ex rel. Attorney General v. Cunningam · Maryland Theatrical Corp. v. Brennan · Ekern v. McGovern · 8 Smith & H. 248 - Ridout v. State
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It seems obvious and we therefore hold that if the Act of 1901 is to be declared unconstitutional, then the de facto doctrine cannot be applied to maintain the present members of the General Assembly in office. If the Chancellor is correct in holding that this statute has expired by the passage of the decade following its enactment then for the same reason all prior apportionment acts have expired by a lapse of time and are non-existent. Therefore we would not only not have any existing members of the General Assembly but we would have no apportionment act whatever under which a new election could be held for the election of members to the General Assembly. * * * * * * "Under the allegations of the bill this Act was invalid at the time it was enacted, but the bill fails to allege the existence of a prior valid apportionment act to fall back upon. In that situation the authorities are practically unanimous in holding that a court will not declare such a statute invalid. In Fesler v. Brayton, 145 Ind. 71 , 44 N.E. 37 , 32 L.R.A. 578 , the Court said that the effect of striking down an apportionment statute under those circumstances would be to destroy the State Government. See also State ex rel. Winnie v. Stoddard, 25 Nev. 452 , 62 P. 237 , 51 L.R.A. 229 . In State ex rel. Sullivan v. Schnitger, 16 Wyo. 479 , 95 P. 698 , at page 708, a number of cases are cited for the proposition that the court will not declare an apportionment act invalid unless there is a prior valid act on”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.