Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 86 ALA 20 - Gandy v. State

Gandy v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1888

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
4
states following
July 1975
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently July 1975

1 federal appellate · 21 state decisions

1001888189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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. Drake v. Mahaney · Ballentyne v. Wickersham · Ex parte Pollard · Ford v. State · Stein v. Leeper

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

  1. ““It is insisted that the statute contains two subjects, both of which are expressed in the title — one to amend the charter of the town, and the other to incorporate tlie city of Bessemer. It is well settled that a statute which, contains two subjects, both of which are expressed in the title, falls within the constitutional inhibition; and when a statute contains two subjects, only one of which is expressed in the title, the portions not pertinent and germane to the subject so expressed will be declared unconstitutional. If, as appellants contend, two subjects are expressed in the title, but thé enactment contains only one of them, it is not violative of the Constitution. The constitutional mandate is, not that two subjects shall not be expressed in the title, but that ‘each law shall contain but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title.’ A statute does not come within the letter or spirit of the constitutional inhibition merely because two subjects may be expressed in the title. In such case the subject so expressed, but not contained in the law, may be rejected as surplusage. If the enactment assailed contains only one of the subjects which is expressed in the title, and only minor provisions connected with and proper or necessary to the full accomplishment of its object, the constitutional mandate is satisfied, though there may be two subjects expressed in the title. But are two subjects expressed? If the words, ‘to amend the charter of the town' of Bess”
    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.