Turner v. Staggs’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 3 district · 119 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 130 later decisions — most recently December 2007 · most notably James v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (1984), Doe Fein v. District of Columbia (1996)
2 federal appellate · 3 district · 119 state decisions — followed in 29 states
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 McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher · Lincoln County v. Luning · Williams v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority · McDonald v. City of Spring Valley · Reich v. State Highway Department
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 130 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Nor am I concerned with the fineline distinction of whether the claim statute is a statute of limitation or a procedural roadblock as a condition precedent to suit ... The trend is to construe statutes in such a manner as to effectuate the long recognized principle that children are to be protected during their minority from the destruction of their rights by the running of the statutes of limitation ... Whether the claim statute be called a statute of limitations or a condition precedent is of no moment. A review of other authorities reflects the foretold positive trend against the rigidity of the claim statutes, particularly as they affect the rights of minors.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““[T]he Fourteenth Amendment permits the States a wide scope of discretion in enacting laws which affect some groups of citizens differently than others. The constitutional safeguard is offended only if the classifi cation rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of the State’s objective. State legislatures are presumed to have acted within their constitutional power despite the fact that, in practice, their laws result in some inequality. A statutory discrimination will not be set aside if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent““1. All demands and accounts against any incorporated city in this state, must be presented to the city council of the city, in writing, within 6 months from the time the demands or accounts became due. “3. No demand or account against any incorporated city in this state may be audited, considered, allowed or paid by the city council or any other officer or officers of the incorporated city unless the provisions of subsection 1 are strictly complied with.””
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.