Ellis v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1892
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently August 2014
22 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.
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The counsel for the prisoner contends that this act is in violation of section 4 of article 10, of the constitution of the state. That- part of said section which is claimed to be violated by the act is as follows: Nor shall the seat of justice of any county be removed without the concurrence of two-thirds of the qualified voters of the county.’ The power of the legislature to establish special courts, under section 1 of article 6 of the constitution, is well established, and is not denied in this case. Moore v. State, 5 Sneed, [510] 512 [ 37 Tenn. 501 ]; Wilcox v. State, 3 Heisk. [110] 114 [ 50 Tenn. 110 ]. But while conceding the general power to establish special courts, the contention is that the legislature has no power to establish a special court at any other place in a county than the county seat; and that the establishment of such a court by the legislature at a place other than the county seat is to remove the seat of justice 'without the concurrence of two thirds of the qualified voters of the county.’ The act of 1891, which, we are considering, does establish the law court of Rockwood at the town of Rockwood, while the comity seat is at Kingston. “The question, then, is squarely presented, whether an act of the legislature establishing a new court at a point other than the county seat is a removal of the seat of justice. If the act has this effect, either directly or indirectly, then it is plainly in violation of the constitution, and it will he our duty to decla”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[i]f the jury is made up of citizens of any part of the county, who are otherwise qualified, the requirement of the constitution is complied with.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Lanciloti“* * nor shall the seat of Justice of any county be removed without the concurrence of two-thirds of the qualified voters of the County.””
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.