Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 440 SW2D 660 - White v. State

White v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1969

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
2
states following
June 2014
most recently cited

52 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently June 2014 · most notably Ex Parte Crisp (1983), Bates v. State (1979)

52 state decisions

300196919701980199020002010decided

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 Arnold v. Leonard · Parks v. West · Gulf Ins. Co. v. James, St. Treas. · Central Education Agency v. Independent School District · State Highway Department v. Gorham

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

  1. “But if any subject shall be embraced in an act, which shall not be expressed in the title, such act shall be void only as to so much thereof, as shall not be so expressed.”
    13 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"The reason underlying the constitutional requirement is to advise the legislature and the people of the nature of each particular bill so as to prevent the insertion of obnoxious clauses which might otherwise be engrafted on it and become law. Fraud and deception are rendered less likely if the caption or title of an act, which is often the only part of the bill read by the busy members of the legislature, fully apprises the members of the contents of the bill itself. (citations omitted)"”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““It is well established that when the title of an original act embraces matters covered by an amendment, the title or caption of the amendment need not state the subject of the law amended or specify the nature of the proposed amendment, but new substantive matter in the amendment, not germane to the provision amended, is invalid as legislation on matters not expressed in the title of the amendatory act.””
    2 later decisions 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.