Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 96 ARK 117 - Sanders v. Baggerly

Sanders v. Baggerly’s Empirical Analysis

1910

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
4
states following
December 1965
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 6 district · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently December 1965 · most notably Hayes v. Manning (1914), Barkley v. Hayes (1913)

3 federal appellate · 6 district · 16 state decisions

130191019201930194019501960decided

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 Watson v. Jones · Brown v. Clark · Boyles v. Roberts · Mack v. Kime · Ramsey v. Hicks

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

  1. ““We believe that the union of: the Christian churches of substantially similar faith and polity would be to the glory of God, the gpod of mankind, and the strengthening of Christian testimony at home and' abroad. "We believe that the manifest providential developments and leadings in the two churches since their separation, together with present conditions of agreement and fellowship, have been and are such as to justify their reunion. “Therefore, we cordially recommend to your respective general assemblies, that the reunion of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America and the Cumberland Presbyterian Church be accomplished as soon as the necessary steps can bo taken, upon the basis hereinafter set forth. “1. The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, whose general assembly mot in the Immanuel Church, Los Angeles, Cal., May 21st, 1003, and the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, whose general assembly met in the First Cumberland Presbyterian Church, Nashville, Tenn., May 21st, 1903, shall be united as one church, under the name and style of the Presbyterian Church .in the United States of America, possessing all- the legal and corporate rights and powe'rs which the separate churches now possess. “2. The union shall be effected on the doctrinal basis of the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, as revised in 1903, and of its other doctrinal and ecclesiastical standards, and the Scriptures of the Old and New Testa”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Presbyterian church government is representative in form. Neither the constituent churches nor the members thereof legislate directly l'or themselves. The congregation of a church only elects the ruling elders who compose the church session, and the session in turn selects one of its members as a representative in presbytery. The sovereignty of the church is exercised by the general assembly and the presbyteries acting together; the assembly proposing legislation, and the presbyteries approving or disapproving. They act for the whole church, and the will of a majority of all the presbyteries, acting with the general assembly, expresses the will of all the particular churches. It is essentially a government of the majority. All things which'are done by the church as a whole are, according to the letter of the constitution, done by the assembly and presbyteries, and all of the inherent powers of the church as a whole reside in those representative bodies. They constitute the residuum of all the powers, executive, legislative, and judicial, not expressly lodged elsewhere by the constitution. Therefore, when the union was decreed by those bodies, the will of the whole church was spoken.” Sanders v. Baggerly, 96 Ark. 117 , 129, 130, 131 S. W. 49 , 54, 55.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““To this question the presbytery is to give categorical answer. While the vote is taken simply upon this question, your action thereon will mean the acceptance or rejection oí the entire plan, embracing the Basis of Union, Concurrent Declarations, and recommendations, without amendment or alteration in any part. (Seo Minutes, pages 02a-65a.)””
    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.