Philpot v. Patton’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably Board of Trustees v. Attorney General of the Commonwealth (2003), Morgan v. Getter (2014)
27 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 Rose v. Council for Better Education, Inc. · Word v. Commerce Oil Co. · Legislative Research Commission Ex Rel. Prather v. Brown · Lexington Herald-Leader Co., Inc. v. Meigs
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The decision whether to apply [this] exception to the mootness doctrine basically involves two questions: whether (1) the challenged action is too short in duration to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration and [2] there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subject to the same action again.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“capable of repetition yet evading review”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Abernathy v. Nicholson · AC v. Com.“Rose held the General Assembly is not immune from suit in a declaratory judgment action to decide whether the General Assembly has failed to carry out a constitutional mandate and that members of the General Assembly are not immune from declaratory relief of this nature simply because they are acting in their official capacity. Rose held a declaratory judgment over constitutionality is not limited to deciding the constitutionality of statutes, but extends to failure to enact statutes complying with constitutional mandate. While it would be a violation of the separation of powers doctrine in the Kentucky Constitution, Sections 27 and 28, for our Court to tell the General Assembly what to do, ie., what system or rules to enact, it is our constitutional responsibility to tell them whether the system in place complies with or violates a constitutional mandate, and, if it violates the constitu tional mandate, to tell them what is the constitutional “minimum.” But by its very nature, judicial exercise of this responsibility requires great restraint.”
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.