Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 83 Tex. 182 - Nolan County v. State

Nolan County v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1891

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
5
states following
March 1958
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently March 1958 · most notably Parker v. Harris County Drainage Dist. No. 2 (1912), McIntosh v. Dill (1922)

8 federal appellate · 33 state decisions

1301891190019101920193019401950decided

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.

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

  1. ““Sec. 3. In all cases where the proceeds of (lie sale of any bonds have been received by tlie proper officers of the counly or by a parly acting for it in negotiating the sale thereof, such counly shall be thereafter estopped from denying the validity of such bonds so issued and the same shall be held to bo valid and binding obligations of the county, and in any aciion upon such bonds or coupons thereto, judgment shall be rendered against the county for the amount of the bonds sued on and interest thereon at the rate mentioned therein, deducting such amounts, if any, as have been previously paid thereon. •‘Sec. 4. The payment of any interest upon any bonds heretofore purchased or that may hereafter be purchased, with public school funds, or belonging thereto, shall be deemed and held a waiver of any supposed error, irregularity or want of authority affecting, or tending to affect the validity of any such bonds, and the same shall thereafter he held valid and binding obligations upon the county by which they appear or purport to have been issued, notwithstanding any such supposed error, irregularity or want of authority as aforesaid.””
    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.