Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 54 WASH 587 - Prentice v. Franklin County

Prentice v. Franklin County’s Empirical Analysis

1909

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
November 1996
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently November 1996

9 state decisions

401909191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 County of Spokane v. Bracht

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

  1. ““The several boards of county commissioners are authorized and required . . . (6) To have the care of the county property and the management of the county funds and business, and in the name of the county to prosecute and defend all actions for and against the county, and such other powers as are or may be conferred by law.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Although the prosecuting attorney is the legal adviser of the county he is not authorized to prosecute this appeal in opposition to the orders of the board of county commissioners.”
    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.