Romine v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district · 13 state decisions

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

1. ““1. An act of Congress enabling a territory to become a state has no binding force on the people of the territory until they have adopted a Constitution, and the territory has been admitted into the Union; and then, if by their < ¡onstitution, the people hai e expressed no dissent from any proposition contained in the Enabling Act, they are bound by its provisions. But; if the Constitution contains any modification of any of the provisions of the Enabling Act, and the state has been formally admitted by the President and Congress into the Union, the modified provisions are to be taken as the existing contract between the State and the Federal government. “2. Act Cong. Feb. 22, 1889, enabling the territory of Washington to come into the Union, required (sections 10, 11) the public lands previously reserved by Act Cong. March 2, 3851, for school purposes to be disposed of by the state in a specified manner. The Constitution adopted by the people pursuant to such act contained a provision (article 16, § 2) empowering the state Legislature to confirm all previous sales of school lands made in good faith. Held that, whether or not it was the intention of Congress, by the Enabling Act, to repudiate, as unauthorized, all sale of school lands made by the territory, the state of Washington could not question the title of such purchasers, subsequently confirmed by the state Legislature since the above constitutional provisions, under which the state was admitted, modified the propos”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Board of Com'rs

2. ““The statute does not authorize the assessment of costs against the state, and none should have been allowed. The state has never been in fault in these matters, but it has graciously allowed a suit to be brought that the landholder might secure further assurance of his title. It is all to his advantage, and he ought to pay the expense of the proceeding. But it was different when the state appealed, and thereby put itself in the wrong. . . . “Respondent will recover costs of the appeal only against the state.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 1 Wash. 2d 545 - Washington Recorder Publishing Co. v. Ernst