Gold’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Crisman v. PIERCE COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION (2002), Murawski v. Pataki (2007)
2 district · 4 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 Daniels v. Williams · United States v. Classic · Snowden v. Hughes · Davidson v. Cannon · Jackson Dairy, Inc. v. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc.
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]here, as here, there exists a state law remedy to the election irregularities that is fair and adequate, human error in the conduct of elections does not rise to the level of a Fourteenth Amendment constitutional violation actionable under § 1983 in the absence of willful action by state officials intended to deprive individuals of their constitutional right to vote.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Second Circuit has ruled that: ... plaintiffs who can establish nothing more than “unintended irregularities” in the conduct of elections are barred from obtaining § 1983 relief in federal court, provided an adequate and fair state remedy exists.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Were we to embrace plaintiffs’ theory [that willful or knowing conduct is not required to state a claim under § 1983], this court would henceforth be thrust into the details of virtually every election, tinkering with the state's election machinery, reviewing petitions, registration cards, vote tallies, and certificates of election for all manner of error and insufficiency under state and federal law. Absent a clear and unambiguous mandate from Congress, we are not inclined to undertake such a wholesale expansion of our jurisdiction into an area which, with certain narrow and well defined exceptions, has been in the exclusive cognizance of the state courts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.