Roberts v. Spray’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
2 district · 81 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently December 2012 · most notably City of Mesa v. Killingsworth (1964), Kilpatrick v. Superior Court (1970)
2 district · 81 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 McCullough v. Commonwealth of Virginia · Cooper Manuf'G Co of Mount Vernon Ohio v. Ferguson · Green v. Frazier · Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railroad v. Commonwealth · Cincinnati v. Commonwealth of Kentucky Louisville N R Co
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that every intendment is in favor of the constitutionality of legislation, and unless its invalidity is established beyond a reasonable doubt it will be declared constitutional.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Iman v. Bolin · Iman v. Bolin“A. No person shall be entitled to vote at any election, held under the provisions of this chapter unless: 1. He is a holder of title or evidence of title, including receipts or other evidence of the rights of entry-men on lands under any law of the United States or this state, to land in the district, and has possessed such qualifications for ninety days immediately preceding the date of such election. 2. He has resided continuously for six months immediately preceding the election in the county in which the district or a part thereof is located. 3. He is at least eighteen years of age. 4. He is registered to vote as provided by § 48-3015. C. The administrator or executor of the estate of a deceased person, and the guardian of a minor or incompetent person, appointed and qualified under the laws of the state, may register and cast the vote of the estate or person which he represents. The officer of a corporation who is designated and authorized by a resolution of the board of directors of the corporation may register and cast the vote of the corporation. E. The general partner of a partnership in whose name title to property within the district is vested as holder of title or evidence of title, who is designated and authorized in writing by all of the general partners, may register and cast the vote of the partnership. F. The trustee of a trust, and the trustee who is designated and authorized in writing by all the trustees of a trust in which there are more than one trustee,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““This section of the constitution neither creates nor authorizes the creation of a tax-levying improvement district. The legislature needs no constitutional authority to create such a district. Its power to enact such legislation is an attribute of sovereignty which resides in the people of the state. We have been ■ referred to no provision in the constitution and we find none which restricts the legislature in the enactment of such a law or with which it is in conflict. Therefore we hold that the legislature had plenary authority to authorize the creation of the district and to vest it with the powers therein granted.” 71 Ariz. at 67 , 223 P.2d at 813 .”
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.