State Ex Rel. Morrison v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably 170 W. Va. 779 - Manchin v. Browning (1982), Pinana v. State (1960)
2 federal appellate · 34 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 Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury · Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal · Driscoll v. Burlington-Bristol Bridge Co. · Arizona Public Service Co. v. Southern Union Gas Co. · Duncan v. Truman
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““I am unable to concur in the disposition of these cases because I do not think that the Attorney General is authorized to either initiate or maintain these actions. “The Constitution of this State establishes the executive offices of the Governor, Secretary of State, State Auditor, State Treasurer, Attorney General and the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Article 5, Section 1, and provides that the duties of the Attorney General ‘shall be as prescribed by law.’ Article 5, Section 9. Among the duties of the Attorney Genera] prescribed by statute is the prosecution and defense of causes to which the State is a party. Section 4-607, A. C.A. 1939, as amended [A.R.S. § 41-193]. Plainly the statute contemplates that the Attorney General act as the legal representative of the people; so that, whenever the State is a party' to a lawsuit, it is the Attorney General who must act as its lawyer. • While there may be instances in which the Attorney General must exercise the faculty of judgment which the State as an artificial entity is unable to exercise and determine when an action should be instituted in the name of the State, I do not believe Section 4 — 607 [A.R.S. § 41-193] was designed or intended to authorize the Attorney General to exercise the power of discretion placed by the Constitution and applicable statutes in other executive and administrative officers. Nor that it should be so construed that the ultimate power to decide matters pertaining to their offices is shifted”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““A. The department of law shall be composed of the attorney general and the subdivisions of the department created as provided in this article. Unless otherwise provided by law the department shall: “1. Prosecute and defend in the supreme court all proceedings in which the state or an officer thereof in his official capacity is a party. “2. At the direction of the governor or when deemed necessary by the attorney general, prosecute and defend any proceeding in a state court other than the supreme court in which the state or án officer thereof is a party or has an interest.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The next question before this tribunal is whether the Attorney General has the right on behalf of the State to apply for •the writ under the circumstances of this case. We have already determined that the State has the power to do so, but here the narrow question is whether the Attorney General can represent the State without the permission of the administrative officer whose department has been given the authority to handle such affairs generally. * * * ” State v. Thomas, 80 Ariz. 327, 331 , 297 P.2d 624, 627 (1956).”
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.