Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 54 OR 424 - Straw v. Harris

Straw v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis

1909

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
4
states following
December 1998
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 4 district · 49 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently December 1998 · most notably Colby v. City of Medford (1917), State v. Port of Astoria (1916)

1 federal appellate · 4 district · 49 state decisions

2701909191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Farm Investment Co. v. Carpenter · Kadderly v. Portland · Owners of Lands v. People ex rel. Stookey · Crawford Co. v. Hathaway · Cook v. Port of Portland

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. ““The act under consideration by permitting the incorporation of ports does not thereby directly attempt to amend the charter of any city or town within the boundaries thereof. Under any view, it may only affect the charters and ordinances of such cities and towns to the extent that they may be in conflict or inconsistent with the general object and purpose for which the port may be organized. This the Constitution clearly intended to permit; that is to say, a general law thereunder is provided whereby the people within the municipality created-under it may take such steps in support thereof as may be necessary, even though its success may require, on the part of the included municipalities, a surrender of some of the rights or privileges previously granted to or acquired by them. Incorporated cities and towns may change or amend their charters at any time in the manner provided by the Constitution. The power to do so, however, is derived from the people of the state, and is necessarily limited to the exercise of such powers, rights and privileges as may not be inconsistent with the maintenance and perpetuity of the state, of which public corporations are but the mere instrumentalities of government. In other words, the powers thus acquired do not rise higher than their source.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “. “Our attention is called to the inclusion within the boundaries of the port of what is known as the ‘Ten-Mile District.’ This, it is contended, is irregular, because situated within a separate and distinct drainage basin. Since the port as incorporated does not include all of the county, nor extend ‘beyond the natural watershed of any drainage basin whose waters flow into another bay, estuary, or river navigable from the sea situate within said county,’ the inclusion therein of the ‘Ten-Mile District’ is not inimical to any of the provisions of the act under which it is created.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Corporations may be formed under general laws, but shall not be created by the legislative assembly by special laws.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.