6 Smith & H. 321 - Malone v. Peay’s Empirical Analysis
1929
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently December 1976
7 federal appellate · 11 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.
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Nor do we agree with counsel that the legislation under consideration is violative of section 31, art. 2, of our Constitution,, in that it is a giving of the state’s credit to a corporation. The theory is that the lands being acquired for park purposes are to be transferred to the United States. In the first place, the United States is not a corporation within the meaning of this section of our Constitution. In Ransom v. Rutherford County, 123 Tenn. 1 , 130 S.W. 1057 , Ann.Cas.l912B, 1356, this court held that the state is not a ‘person,- company, association, or corporation,’ in the sense of this constitutional inhibition, and quoted with approval from Lancey v. King County, 15 Wash. 9 , 45 P. 645 , 34 L.R.A. 817 , wherein it was said that neither the state nor the United States is an ‘individual, association, company or corporation; within the meaning’ of a similar section of the constitution of that state. And see Walker v. [City of] Cincinnati, 21 Ohio St. 14 , 8 Am.Rep. 24 , 38, and State v. [City of] Milwaukee, 156 Wis. 549 , 146 N.W. 775 ; Rockaway [Pacific Corp.] v. Stotesbury (D.C.) 255 F. [345], 352. “Moreover, a transfer of the title to-lands from the state to the United States for park purposes is not a divestiture of the right of use. The beneficial rights of the people of Tennessee are in. no sense impaired. Under our dual form of government, the citizens of Tennessee are citizens-of the United States. The passing of this property from one government to the oth”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. King v. Sheppard
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.