Neeper v. Stewart’s Empirical Analysis
1933
Citation profile
4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 1985
4 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 State Ex Inf. Atty. Gen. v. Hedrick · Shanks, Auditor v. Howes, Chief Clerk · 59 Tex. Crim. 484 - Naill v. State · McGregor v. Cain · Morrow v. Board of Education
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . In that article is found the following language: ‘Provided that in no case shall said commissioner’s court or any member thereof attempt to influence the appointment of any person as deputy or assistant in any office.’ A public policy is thereby manifested in case of county and precinct officers generally to empower such officers to select their deputies or assistants and to forbid the commissioner’s court, or any member thereof, from attempting to influence such officers in their selection of assistants. The reason for this policy is obvious. Officers elected to discharge public trusts, and upon whom the responsibility for the proper discharge thereof rests, should be free to select persons of their own choice to assist them in its discharge . . . ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Renfro v. Shropshire
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.