Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 81 ILL 49 - Updike v. Wright

Updike v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis

1876

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
4
states following
January 1968
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently January 1968 · most notably O'Brien v. Wheelock (1902), Owners of Lands v. People ex rel. Stookey (1885)

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 26 state decisions

901876188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

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 People ex rel. Wilson v. Salomon · Harward v. St. Clair & Monroe Levee & Drainage Co. · Hessler v. Drainage Commissioners · Gage v. Graham · Board of Directors v. Houston

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

  1. ““Apparently, an effort was made to have the law enacted conform to the constitutional provisions in every particular'. Hence it is declared the work to be done is the construction of drains and ditches for agricultura! and sanitary purposes, and if it becomes necessary, in the construction of a system o" drainage, that a ‘levee or other work’ be adopted to make that system available, such levee or other work may be constructed under the provisions of the statute. But it is nowhere intimated the owners or occupants of land may undertake, under the provisions of this law, the building and maintenance of an immense levee on the borders of a river, not connected with any system of drainage by ditches. Neither the constitution nor the statute contemplates any such work. What was in the minds of the framers of the constitution, and the legislators who enacted the law in pursuance of its provisions, must have been the drainage of lands by means of drains and ditches, and what is said in the statute on the subject of a ‘levee or other work’ is always in connection with a system of drainage in that mode. The work outlined by the constitution and the statute is comparatively insignificant, and may be done at. no great cost; but that which is undertaken in this case is the construction of a levee on the hanks of the Wabash river, of many miles in length, and estimated to cost a great many thousand dollars. No system of drainage by drains and ditches was planned, nor deemed necessary for”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The General Assembly may vest the corporate authorities of cities, towns and villages with power to make local improvements by special assessment or by special taxation of contiguous property or otherwise. For all other corporate purposes, all municipal corporations may be vested with authority to assess and collect taxes; but such taxes shall be uniform with respect to persons and property, within the jurisdiction of the body imposing the same.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.