Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 84 KAN 248 - Armstrong v. George

Armstrong v. George’s Empirical Analysis

1911

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
December 1945
most recently cited

4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently December 1945

4 state decisions

201911192019301940decided

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 State v. Rogers · State ex rel. Jackson v. Pauley · Shepherd v. City of Kansas · City of Leavenworth v. Leavenworth City & Fort Leavenworth Water Co. · Board of Education v. Board of County Commissioners

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

  1. ““It is contended that a school which was in existence when the Barnes law took effect is not established under that law — that to establish means to create, to found, or to institute. On the other hand the defendants’ contention is that to establish, as used in the statute, means to make stable; to confirm; to secure on a firm basis, as by recognition or favor. These definitions are taken from Webster’s dictionary, and merely show that the word may be used in different senses. . . . The status of any high school by which it may come under the operation of the law is established when it is made to conform to the requirements of the Barnes law. If it has been so established and maintained for one year, it is within the operation of the act of 1909. Reported cases might be cited wherein the word ‘establish’ has been held practically synonymous with create, while others have held the meaning of the word to be to confirm, or to ascertain and fix, or settle. (3 Words and Ph. Jud. Def. pp. 2469-2474; 16 Cyc. 691.) The particular sense in which the word is used must be determined by the context and the manifest intent and scope of the statute. In determining the import of this word in a statute of Alabama the supreme court of that state said: “It is as often employed to signify the putting or fixing on a firm basis, of putting in a settled or an efficient state or condition, an existing legal organization or institution, as it is to found or set up such organization or institution ; ”
    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.