Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 111 MO 45 - Bowers v. Smith

Bowers v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1892

Citation profile

127
cited by 127 later decisions
27
states following
September 2018
most recently cited

127 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 127 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Jones v. State (1899), State Ex Rel. Chilcutt v. Thatch (1949)

127 state decisions — followed in 27 states

2901892190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Abraham Pennock v. Adam Dialogue · McDonald v. Hovey · Allen v. St. Louis Bank · Davis v. State ex rel. Wren · People Ex Rel. Nichols v. Board of County Canvassers

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

  1. ““Undoubtedly, some irregularities are of so grave a nature as to invalidate the whole return of the precinct at which they occur; as, for example, the omission of registration. Zeiler v. Chapman (1874), 54 Mo. 502 . In determining which are of that kind, the courts aim merely to give effect to the intent of the law-makers in that regard, aided by established rules of interpretation. If the law itself declares a specified irregularity to be fatal, the courts will follow that command, irrespective of their views of the importance of the requirement. Ledbetter v. Hall (1876), 62 Mo. 422 . In the absence of such declaration, the judiciary endeavor, as best they may, to discern whether the deviation from the prescribed forms of law had or had not so vital an influence on the proceedings as probably prevented a free and full expression of the popular will. If it had, the irregularity is held to vitiate the entire return; otherwise, it is considered immaterial. It has been sometimes said, in this connection, that certain provisions of election laws are mandatory, and others directory. These terms may, perhaps, be convenient to distinguish one class of irregularities from the other. But, strictly speaking, all provisions of such laws are mandatory in the sense that they impose the duty of obedience on those who come within their purview. But it does not therefore follow that every slight departure therefrom should taint the whole proceedings with a fatal blemish. Courts justly consid”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““ This ‘ ballot reform law ’ was intended to improve the methods for giving expression to the popular will in the choice of public officers. It should be construed so as to promote, not destroy, the great objects in view in its passage.””
    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.