Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 569 P2D 793 - Thomas v. Rosen

Thomas v. Rosen’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
1
states following
August 2022
most recently cited

21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently August 2022

21 state decisions

70197719801990200020102020decided

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 State ex rel. Bonner v. Dixon · Mack v. . Colleran · Wagstaff v. Superior Court, Family Court Division · State ex rel. Finnegan v. Dammann · Bradner v. Hammond

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

  1. “: the setting aside from the public revenue of a certain sum of money for specific objects in such a manner that the executive officers of the government are authorized to use that money, and no more for that object, and no other. Two subsequent decisions of this court have held that the term”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Now, a majority vote in each house of the legislature is not equivalent to passing a law, because it does not require the signature of the governor, and it does not require conformance with the provisions of this constitution and the provisions of such laws as will be passed under it with respect to the procedure in enacting a law. So, when we say in the second sentence, “The state may by law,” we are saying that that law must be passed by the legislature in the manner that is required by the constitution and the statutes, and either signed by the governor or passed over his veto or become law without his signature in the manner provided in the constitution, which we felt was the real intention of the body rather than merely requiring that the legislature by a majority in each house and without adhering to any of those other restrictions and without any reference to the governor could contract debt on behalf of the state.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “The act of appropriating or setting apart; prescribing the destination of a thing; designating the use or application of a fund.... In governmental accounting, an expenditure authorized for a specified amount, purpose, and time. [[Image here]] Public law. The act by which the legislative department of government designates a particular fund, or sets apart a specified portion of the public revenue or of the money in the public treasury, to be applied to some general object of governmental expenditure, or to some individual purchase or expense.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.