Knutson v. Bronner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"To determine whether a taxpayer has standing, under the standard set out in Zeigler [v. Baker , 344 So.2d 761 (Ala. 1977),] and Goode v. Tyler , 237 Ala. 106 , 186 So. 129 (1939) . . ., we first must determine whether the expenditures challenged in this case were from `state funds,' as they clearly were in both of those cases. If [Retirement Systems of Alabama] funds are not `state funds' within the meaning of Alabama's Constitution and statutes, then the principles of law applied in Zeigler and Goode v. Tyler would not apply here. "”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 909 So. 2d 185 - Beckerle v. Moore

2. “'If a taxpayer does not launch an assault, it is not likely that there will be an attack from any other source, because the agency involved is usually in accord with the expenditure. There may be instances in which the affected public official might pursue the matter. The Attorney General would be an appropriate *Page 892 ate officer to bring such a suit, but in some instances this is not done and it is in such cases that it is only the taxpayer's attack which preserves the public treasure.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 949 So. 2d 887 - Jordan v. Siegelman

3. “[t]he plaintiffs' main argument [was] that [Retirement Systems of Alabama] funds are `state funds' and that they, therefore, have standing to prevent the illegal expenditure of those funds.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 909 So. 2d 185 - Beckerle v. Moore