Ex parte Liddell’s Empirical Analysis
1892
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 86 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently March 2008 · most notably 17 Cal. 3d 236 - People v. Olivas (1976), 54 Cal. App. 333 - People v. Peete (1921)
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 86 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 Inhabitants of the Township of Montclair County of Essex v. Ramsdell · People ex rel. Drake v. Mahaney · Abeel v. Clark · Bright v. McCullough · Wheeler v. Town of Westport
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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In Abeel v. Clark, 84 Cal. 229 , 24 Pac. 383 , we held it was not necessary that the title of the act should embrace an abstract of its contents. The cases cited therein show that such is the view taken by the courts of other states; and on reflection it must appear that this conclusion is based upon the soundest principles of constitutional construction. It certainly was not intended that the title should be a repetition of the provisions found in the body of the bill. The object was to prevent deception by the inclusion of matters incongruous with the subject specified in the title. If the title contains a reasonable inti'mation of the matters under legislative consideration, the public cannot complain. It has always been the custom to state the subject of a bill in general terms, and with the fewest words, and the framers of the constitution doubtless intended the legislature to conform to that custom. Mills v. Charleton, 29 Wis. 409 ; Bright v. McCullough, 27 Ind. 226 ; People v. Mahaney, 13 Mich. 494 . Numerous provisions having one general object fairly indicated by the title may be united. Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U. S. 147 , 2 Sup. Ct. 391 . When the general purpose of the act is declared, the details provided for the accomplishment of that purpose will be regarded as necessary incidents.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““The object of the provision is to prevent legislative abuse,—to prevent the passage of acts bearing deceitful and misleading titles. It is intended to protect the members of the Legislature, as well as the public, against fraud; to guard against the passage of bills the titles of which give no- intimation to the members of the Legislature or to the people of the matters contained therein. Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations (6th Ed.) 169.””
2 later decisions 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.