Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 41 KAN 122 - Metsker v. Neally

Metsker v. Neally’s Empirical Analysis

1889

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
8
states following
March 1946
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 1946

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 state decisions

401889189019001910192019301940decided

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. Gill v. Common Council of Watertown · People ex rel. Brewster v. Kilduff · St. Louis County Court v. Sparks · Ex parte Wiley · State ex rel. Atherton v. Sherwood

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

  1. ““They claim that the authority to amove a city officer requires a greater amount of power than to simply suspend him; that a mayor, by virtue of his office, and as an incidental and inherent power thereof, can at any time suspend an officer, even though he may have no power given by statute or ordinance to amove him. They cite authorities which are to the effect that the power to suspend is included in the power to amove. We can readily believe that the greater power to amove might include the lesser one to suspend; but we have failed to notice any instance where the power to amove is not conceded that the authority to suspend is admitted.” (Italics are ours.)”
    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.