State v. McCarty’s Empirical Analysis
1912
Citation profile
2 district · 48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently October 1989 · most notably Franklin v. State Ex Rel. Alabama State Milk Control Board (1936), Parke v. Bradley (1920)
2 district · 48 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
Relies on Barbier v. Connolly · United States v. Grimaud · Union Bridge Company v. United States · Commonwealth ex rel. McClain v. Locke · Isenhour v. State
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The validity of such statutes, says the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, has been long recognized, and may be upheld upon one or both of two grounds: ‘They may be considered as being within the principle of local self-government as to such matters; the board of health being treated as properly representing the inhabitants in making regulations, which often are needed at short notice, and which could not well be made, in all kinds of cases, by the voters in town meeting assembled. Perhaps some of these statutes may also be justified constitutionally, on the ground that the work of the board of health is only a determination of details in the nature of administration which may be by a board appointed for that purpose; and that the substantive legislation is that part of the statute which prescribes a penalty for the disobedience of the rules which they make as agents performing executive and administrative duties.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“said Judge Ranney for the Supreme Court of Ohio, in Cincinnati, Wilmington Zanesville R.R. Co. v. Commissioners , 1 Ohio St. 77 , 88 , in a declaration which, according to Sanborn, Circuit Judge, in St. L. Mer. Bridge Ter. R.R. Co. v. U.S., supra , has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“failing or refusing, without just cause and legal excuse, to cleanse and disinfect any infested or infected place in which live stock are kept, when requested or directed by the . . . Board. . . .”
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.