Lee v. Coleman’s Empirical Analysis
1945
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently July 1999
6 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.
Relationships
Relies on Kerby v. State Ex Rel. Frohmiller · Bank of Lowell v. Cox · American-La France & Foamite Corp. v. City of Phoenix · Avery v. Pima County · State Board of Health v. Frohmiller
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * *. A claim to be a legal claim against the county must not only be for a necessary purpose, but under our law the expense must have been anticipated and provision made therefor in the county budget, and no expense incurred or payments made in excess of the budget are legal. Section 73-502, A.C.A.1939; [citing cases]. The budget sections alleged to have been violated are sections 73-502 and 73-503, A.C.A.1939. The first section requires the board of supervisors to prepare (1) a full and complete statement of the financial affairs of the fiscal year last passed, (2) an estimate of the different amounts which may be required to meet the public expense for the ensuing year, fixing the amounts proposed for all subjects of recurring items of expense, and (3) a statement of the amount of money required for each item of expenditure necessary for county purposes. “The estimate shall be entered upon the minutes of the governing body and shall be fully itemized, showing under separate heads the amounts proposed as required for each department of the county, etc. It shall also show * * a full and complete disclosure and statement of the contemplated expenditures for the ensuing year, showing the amounts proposed to be expended from each separate fund. Section 73-503 provides for a public hearing on the estimated budget. It specifically provides that 'the estimate as finally determined upon, shall he adopted, and no expenditure shall he made for a purpose not included in such budget”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““B. If an illegal payment of money is made as described in subsection A of this section, the county attorney shall institute an action in the name of the county against the supervisors and others liable, to enjoin the payment of the money, or if it has been paid, to recover it with interest at the legal rate, and twenty per cent additional on the principal amount, ■ to be paid into the county treasury to the credit of the fund from which the allowance was made.” (Italics supplied).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Barbee v. Holbrook
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.