Arnold v. Bond’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 23 state decisions

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

1. “`... How it can be said that this will be an obligation of the state, we cannot understand. This is simply a contract of the University to pay out of a designated fund when received. It is no more an obligation of the state than would be the obligation to pay the salaries of the University faculty. The mere fact that the University is the creature of the state and one of its instrumentalities to carry out its governmental functions is not controlling. The state has given the University certain property rights and has authorized it to make use of the same in a certain manner. This the University is proposing to do, and we can see no objection to the same.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Witzenburger v. State ex rel. Wyoming Community Development Authority · Witzenburger v. STATE EX REL. WYO., ETC.

2. ““The question is whether either of these sections [Art. XVI, §§ 1 and 2, Wyoming Constitution] are violated by the legislative act in question and by the proposed loan. There is no such violation, of course, if the indebtedness is not a state debt, or if, by reason of the payment to be made only out of the income of the University fund, liability thereon is limited so as not to be a charge on the taxpayers of the state. * * * The majority of courts have held that an obligation similar to that involved in the case at bar is not a debt of the state. * * * In the case of State ex rel v. Clausen, supra, 134 Wash. 196 , 235 P. 364, 366 (1925), * * * the court said: “ ‘The legislative act under discussion expressly provides that the principal and interest of the bonds authorized shall be payable only from revenues hereafter received from the lease and sale of the granted lands. In no possible way is the credit of the state involved. Not one dollar of its general property can be used to discharge those bonds or the interest on them. Not one dollar of taxes can be put to that purpose. * * * Its (the state’s) only obligation under this act is to see that all the revenues hereafter received from the lease or sale of the granted lands shall be applied towards the payment of these bonds and their interest. On no principle of law can it be said that under these circumstances any debt has been contracted by or on behalf of this state.’ * * * * * * “We are inclined to agree with the opinion”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State Ex Rel. Wyoming Farm Loan Board v. Herschler

3. “* * *' 26 Stat. 222 . Would it be contended, in the absence of express, adverse legislative provision, that school houses could not be erected or repaired from the proceeds of the tax, or the income, or avails from the donated public lands? Is not the erection of suitable buildings as necessary a part of the support of the common schools as the employment of teachers? What feature in the support of any public institutions is more essential than providing a house in which its operations may be carried on, or in making such repairs as its condition demands?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Conder v. University of Utah