Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 93 WIS 640 - Lund v. Chippewa County

Lund v. Chippewa County’s Empirical Analysis

1896

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
7
states following
June 1985
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently June 1985 · most notably 74 Wis. 2d 550 - Buse v. Smith (1976), Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. State (1906)

1 federal appellate · 23 state decisions

601896190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Olcott v. The Supervisors · Cole v. City of La Grange · Roberts v. Northern Pac R Co · Folsom v. Township Ninety-Six Abbeville County · Attorney General v. City of Eau Claire

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

  1. ““It would hardly be expected to find such a site in a city or incorporated village. Besides, the act makes all the provisions of ch. 32, R. S., relating to the support of insane persons and the liability of counties therefor, applicable, as far as-practicable, to persons admitted to the home for the feeble-minded. Sec. 4. Since the chapter of the Revised Statutes so made applicable has little or no reference to cities or villages, but deals throughout with counties, we must conclude that by the word ‘municipalities,’ as used in the act in question, the legislature intended to include counties.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““This provision [sec. 1, art. VIII] manifestly requires such uniformity, in case of a state tax, to extend throughout the state; in case of a county tax, to extend throughout the county; in case of a city tax, to extend throughout the city; and, in case of a town tax, to extend throughout the town. In other words, the rule of uniformity is not broken merely because a town or city or county raises a special tax for local purposes.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““The legislature may confer upon the boards of. supervisors of the several counties of the state such powers of a local, legislative and administrative character as .they shall from time to time prescribe.””
    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.