Redevelopment Authority v. Canepa’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently April 1996
10 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 David Jeffrey Co. v. City of Milwaukee · State ex rel. Wisconsin Development Authority v. Dammann · State ex rel. Bare v. Schinz · Jensen v. Board of Supervisors of Polk County · J. C. Penney Co. v. Tax Commission
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. . . It has been held from almost the beginning of the state that while the state is subject to the prohibitions limiting the power of the state to contract a debt and prohibiting the carrying on of works of internal improvement, governmental units created by the state and carrying on their public functions in particular localities or geographical subdivisions of the state are not so subject. . . .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“in a sense all governmental bodies created under the constitution of the state, including cities and villages, could be termed 'state agencies.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the authority is deemed an independent, separate and distinct public body and a body corporate and politic.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. (1974)
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.