Witcher v. Canon City’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently May 2021
22 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 35 Cal. 2d 550 - Housing Authority v. Superior Court · Cox v. Pearl Investment Company · Oswego Syracuse R.R. Co. v. . State · Lyman v. Town of Bow Mar · Margolis v. District Court in & for the County of Arapahoe
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Neither the state, nor any county, city, town, township or school district shall lend or pledge the credit or faith thereof, directly or indirectly, in any manner to, or in aid of, any person, company or corporation, public or private, for any amount, or for any purpose whatever; or become responsible for any debt, contract or liability of any person, company or corporation, public or private, in or out of the state.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Our prior cases have held that article XI, section 2 of the Colorado Constitution does not prohibit a municipality from conferring a monetary benefit on a private company in consideration of the company’s undertaking a project, even though the company might have been required to undertake the project without such benefit, as long as the expenditure by a municipality furthers a valid public purpose.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“A motion for summary judgment supported by an affidavit, to which no counter-affidavit is filed, presents no issue of fact and the court is entitled to accept the affidavit as true.”). . See Colo. RPC 1.1 cmt. 2 (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. People v. Bontrager
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.