Cottman v. Lochner’s Empirical Analysis
1929
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 1995
6 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
Applies 43 U.S.C. § 932
Relies on Huling v. Kaw Val Ry Imp Co · Wight v. Davidson · Lent v. Tillson · Davies v. City of Los Angeles · Edwards v. City of Cheyenne
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.
““Where the body to which the statute intrusts the matter orders the opening of the way, and in doing so necessarily passes on the facts essential to its jurisdiction, every presumption is in favor of its jurisdiction and the validity of its proceedings on collateral attack. So it has been held that it will be presumed on such an attack that the required notice was given, especially in the absence of any showing to the contrary.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““* * * In view of the peculiar phraseology of the statute, the requirement that a copy of the notice should be sent by registered mail to owners of lands or those claiming an interest in lands over which a highway is proposed to be laid out is, in our judgment, directory merely. * * *””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““* * * The requirement [sending of registered notice] should be followed in each case so far as possible, but failure to do so cannot be held to vitiate the entire proceedings in establishing the road.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
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.