Serpas v. Trebucq’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

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

1. ““Provided that no person whose name is not authorized to be printed on the official ballot, as the nominee of a political party or as an independent candidate, shall be considered a candidate for any office unless he shall have filed with the Clerks of the District Court of the parish or parishes iij which such election is to be held, or the Clerk of the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans if he be a resident of the Parish of Orleans, at least ten (10) days before the general election, a statement containing the correct name under which he is to be voted for and containing the further statement that he is willing and consents to be voted for for that, office, and provided further that no commissioners of .election shall count a ballot as cast for any person whose name is not printed on the ballot or who does not become a candidate in the foregoing manner.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Classic · Cox v. May

2. “himself a candidate in opposition to any one nominated at or through a primary in which”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cox v. May · 21 So. 2d 175 - Torres v. Serpas

3. “It is argued on behalf of Trebucq, the contestee, that this identical legal question has already been considered by the Supreme Court and that that court, in Lacombe v. Laborde, 132 La. 435 , 61 So. 518, 521 , has held that participation in a party primary does not disqualify the defeated candidate if, in the ensuing general election, he receives, in 'write-in' votes, a majority of all the votes cast. And that is exactly what was held in that case. But the reason on which that result was based can no longer be used to sustain a similar conclusion here. When that case arose, the controlling statute was Act No. 49 of 1906, which, as we find in the Laborde case, provided, in section 27, that: * * *.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 21 So. 2d 175 - Torres v. Serpas