Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 56 ALA 306 - Pruitt v. Armstrong

Pruitt v. Armstrong’s Empirical Analysis

1876

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
4
states following
March 1934
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 1934

12 state decisions

501876188018901900191019201930decided

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 McKean Buchanan v. James Alexander · Mayor of Baltimore v. Root ex rel. Armstrong · Mayor of Mobile v. Rowland & Co. · Brooks v. Cook · Millison v. Fisk

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

  1. ““Aside from this, the city corporation, which is a government for the city, invested with certain attributes of sovereignty delegated to it by its charter, is entitled to fill its offices by a selection of suitable persons from among the whole community. This privilege would exist but in name, if those who depend upon their salaries for a livelihood could be deprived of such salaries by garnishment, and thus cut off from the means of subsistence. The result would be that only those who were free from debt, or who could subsist without their salaries, could fill such offices, and the public service might suffer for want of persons to accept or hold them.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Every consideration of policy would forbid it. No government can sanction it. It would be very embarrassing generally, and, under some circumstances, might prove fatal to the public service to allow the means of support of the government to be intercepted in the hands of distributing agents. If the funds of the government, thus specifically appropriated for the support and maintenance of its agents were allowed to be divested by process of attachment- in favor of creditors, or otherwise, from their legitimate object, the functions of the government might be suspended. The state might be thus deprived of the services of her most valuable citizens.””
    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.