Guffee v. Crockett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Code, Section 49-201(9) and the holding in State v. Meador, supra, absolutely compel a rejection of the Chancellor’s holding that the Quarterly Court could not issue and sell bonds for the exclusive purpose of building and maintaining a high school. By the same token, it compels rejection of appellee’s insistence that Williamson County Quarterly Court is not authorized ‘to classify the bonds to be issued * * * or by dedication of the proceeds to a particular project’. To adopt the holding of the Chancellor and the insistence of the appellee would be to nullify Code, Section 49-201(9) and the holding in the Meador case. It would place it within the power of the Board of Education, for all practical purposes, to defeat the efforts of the Quarterly Court to comply with the duty required of it by this statute. “It is a fact, as stated by the Chancellor, that the power of the Quarterly Court over the proceeds of the sale of the bonds ended with the lodging of those proceeds with the Trustee of the County. The Quarterly Court, nor a committee thereof, has no authority to supervise the expenditure of the funds coming into the hands of the trustee as proceeds from the sale of county school building bonds. But that is not material. The Trustee is required to keep these proceeds in a special fund and only permit them to be applied to the accomplishment of the declared purpose for which the bonds were sold. Code, Section 49-713.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State ex rel. Miller v. Peacock

2. ““The division of the proceeds of such a bond issue for school buildings with cities, towns or special school districts which operate their 'schools independently of such county’ is required. As heretofore observed, the intent of the Legislature in so requiring was to avoid the inequity of double taxation. “The Franklin Special School District does not operate a high school system 'independently of’ Williamson County. It operates no high school system. It pays no part of the cost of operating’ the high schools attended by the students residing within its confines. The property, therefore, located within such confines is not subject to the hereinbefore stated double taxation hardship sought to be alleviated by the statutory provision for a division of the bond sale proceeds. It follows, in this Court’s opinion, that, in so far as the issuance of the bonds in question is concerned, Franklin Special School District falls neither within the actual meaning ■nor spirit of the code sections involved.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Board of Education v. McMinn County

3. “In the event that there exists any incorporated city or town or special school district within said county which operates its schools independently of such county, the county legislative body, in its discretion, may provide that such bond shall be payable from the taxes levied only upon that portion of taxable property within said county lying outside the territorial limits of such incorporated cities or towns or special school districts so independently operating their schools, and taxes sufficient to pay principal of and interest on such bonds shall be so levied upon such portion of the taxable property lying outside the territorial limits of such incorporated cities or towns or special school districts.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Phillips v. Anderson County