Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 40 SO2D 462 - Farrington v. Flood

Farrington v. Flood’s Empirical Analysis

1949

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
3
states following
July 1975
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently July 1975

6 state decisions

201949195019601970decided

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 State Ex Rel. Johnson v. City of Sarasota · State Ex Rel. Watkins v. Fernandez · State Ex Rel. Bauder v. Markle · State Ex Rel. Sweeting v. Chapman · State Ex Rel. Pooser v. Wester

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

  1. ““At the time and place designated in the notice aforesaid, the male and female inhabitants who are freeholders and registered voters present, being not less than two-thirds of those whom it is proposed to incorporate, and not less than twenty-five in number, shall select a corporate name and seal for the municipality which they propose to form, and designate by definite metes and bounds the territorial limits thereof. They shall then proceed to choose by a vote of a majority of the said male and female inhabitants who are freeholders and registered voters a mayor and not more than nine and not less than five aldermen, who shall be known as the city council, and in whom it shall vest the government of the city.” (Emphasis added.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “In such a case any person affected injuriously by the attempted incorporation of an area into a municipality may challenge the validity of an organization directly by bill in equity brought for that purpose; provided the question of invalidity is raised as soon as reasonably possible, so that no element of estoppel, laches or acquiescence intervenes.”
    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.