Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 678 SW2D 402 - Union Electric Co. v. Kirkpatrick

Union Electric Co. v. Kirkpatrick’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
4
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently August 2024

14 state decisions

4019841990200020102020decided

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. Halliburton v. Roach · Labor's Educational & Political Club-Independent v. Danforth · Moore v. Brown · Brooks v. General Motors Assembly Division · Buchanan v. Kirkpatrick

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

  1. “This holding in Halliburton, however, is no longer good law. . . . The 1945 Constitution resolved the Halliburton problem by discouraging use of the initiative for constitutional amendments while encouraging use of the process for statutes. “[T]he entire theory of the Committee in drafting this section 58 [now Sec. 50, Art. Ill] was to try to make it necessary for those people who want to write legislative matters into the constitution to so announce it by placing an enacting clause that says we are trying to write this matter into the constitution, . . .” and getting the additional signatures on the proposed constitutional amendment.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “barring exceptional circumstances, we will not look behind the face of the [initiative] petition to determine its constitutionality prior to its being voted on by the electorate^] ... [and] the Secretary of State and the courts ... may look beyond the face of the petition [only] to the extent necessary to determine whether constitutional and statutory requirements pertaining to the form of the [initiative] petition have been satisfied.” 678 S.W.2d at 405 (emphasis added). Union Electric Co.’s reference to the”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[Although] courts .., may look beyond the face of [an initiative] petition-to the extent necessary to determine whether constitutional and statutory requirements pertaining to the form of the petition have been satisfied[,] ... [t]his limited inquiry ... does not permit an evaluation of the merits of any constitutional objection to the proposal under the guise of determining whether the initiative petition in fact proposes a constitutional amendment [or a law].”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.