Mellette County v. Arnold’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently August 2009
5 federal appellate · 12 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 Lawrence Manuf'G Co v. Janesville Cotton-Mills · Union Bank of Richmond v. Commissioners of Oxford · Warren v. County of Stanton · Green v. Hutsonville Township High School District No. 201 · Missouri River Telephone Co. v. City of Mitchell
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“power to act, it may be estopped by the acts of its agents although the method of exercising the power was irregular.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“broad distinction between an irregular exercise of a granted power and a total absence of power.”
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.