Gellert v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently July 2021
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 59 Cal. 2d 159 - Metropolitan Water Dist. v. Marquardt · Johnson v. Harrison · State v. Cassidy · Panitz v. Comptroller of the Treasury & State Treasurer · Johnson v. Greiner
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]ll that is necessary is that the act should embrace some one general subject; and by this is meant, merely, that all matters treated of should fall under some one general idea, be so connected with or related to each other, either logically or in popular understanding, as to be part of, or germane to, one general subject. 16”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[elvery bill shall be confined to one subject”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Short v. State · Van Brunt v. State“[The one-subject rule] should however, be construed with considerable breadth. Otherwise statutes might be restricted unduly in scope and permissible subject matter, thereby multiplying and complicating the number of necessary enactment and their interrelationships.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Short v. State · Van Brunt v. State
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.