Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 615 SW2D 6 - Buchanan v. Kirkpatrick

Buchanan v. Kirkpatrick’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
4
states following
September 2018
most recently cited

38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably 196 W. Va. 208 - State Ex Rel. Cooper v. Caperton (1996), Missourians to Protect the Initiative Process v. Blunt (1990)

38 state decisions

1301981199020002010decided

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 Griffin v. People of the State of Illinois · Murphy v. Carron · Douglas v. People of State of California · M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections Butts

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

  1. ““No such proposed amendment shall contain * * * more than one subject and matters properly connected therewith. ” (emphasis added)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “The supreme court shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction in ⅛11 cases involving the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States, or of a statute or provision of the constitution of this state, the construction of the revenue laws of this state, the title to any state office and in all cases where the punishment imposed is death. The court of appeals shall have general appellate jurisdiction in all cases except those within the exclusive jurisdiction of the supreme court.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “For any fiscal year in the event that total state revenues exceed the revenue limit established in this section by one percent or more, the excess revenues shall be refunded pro rata based on the liability reported on the Missouri state income tax (or its successor tax or taxes) annual returns filed following the close of such fiscal year. If the excess is less than one percent, this excess shall be transferred to the general revenue fund.”
    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.