Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 72 Ariz. 360 - Strode v. Sullivan

Strode v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis

1951

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
5
states following
August 2017
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 42 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably City of Casa Grande v. Arizona Water Co. (2001), Lewiston Firefighters Ass'n, Local 785 v. City of Lewiston (1976)

2 federal appellate · 42 state decisions

1101951196019701980199020002010decided

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 Luhrs v. City of Phoenix · Clayton v. State · City of Tucson v. Tucson Sunshine Climate Club · 150 Ohio St. 203 - State Ex Rel. Hackley v. Edmonds · State v. Jaastad

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

  1. “The framers of the Constitution, in authorizing a qualified city to frame a charter for its own government, certainly contemplated the need for officers and the necessity of a procedure for their selection. These are essentials which are confronted at the very inception of any undertaking looking toward the preparation of a governmental structure. We can conceive of no essentials more inherently of local interest or concern to the electors of a city than who shall be its governing officers and how they shall be selected.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The provisions of the general laws of the State of Arizona relating to and governing primary elections and the nomination of elective officers, whether by primary or certificate of nomination (being the whole of title 16, Arizona Revised Statutes, 1956, and each and every provision of said title with all amendments and supplements thereto) applicable to a city of the population and the class of this city, shall apply and govern the holding of primaries and nominations of elective officers. The may- or and council shall have power to make any further and additional provisions relating to primaries and nominations of officers not repugnant or contrary to the provisions of the constitution and the laws of the state or any amendments and supplements thereto.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[Tjhis coui’t has uniformly held that a city charter, when regularly adopted and approved, becomes the organic law of the city and the provisions of the charter supersede all laws of the state in conflict with such charter provisions insofar as such laws relate to purely municipal affairs.”
    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.