State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1875
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently January 1930
3 federal appellate · 17 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 Alexander Marshall v. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company · Pacific Railroad v. Seely · Gray v. . Hook · Harris v. Roof's Executors · George v. Harris
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘ ‘ The propriety of any particular location of public buildings may depend in some measure upon the sum proposed to be given by the citizens of any place. The public interest obviously requires that such location should be made with a view to all the circumstances, and the greater or less burden to the whole state would be an important circumstance to be taken into consideration, in determining between several places, in other respects equally convenient. The increased value of the property, in the .vicinity of public buildings, would seem to require that those who are benefited should contribute some part of the increase, for the purpose of erecting them, rather than that the whole advantage should accrue to them, and the expense be wholly-borne by the citizens generally. We can see no foundation for the objection made to' this subscription, on the ground of public policy or propriety. . . . What principle of public policy does it violate? The members of the board of police, as individuals, will not receive any portion of the money for which the note was given. At the time of the contract it was not intended or expected that they should receive it. It was not a proposition by the defendants to pay them so much as individuals, in consideration that they would not change the site of the courthouse. If it had been it would have been clearly illegal and could not have been enforced. But the contract was made by them in their official capacity, for the benefit of the county. . .”
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.