Crooks v. Maynard’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently May 2012
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 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 R. E. W. Construction Co. v. District Court of the Third Judicial District · 175 W. Va. 375 - Rutledge v. Workman · State v. Wharfield · State Ex Rel. Hansen v. Parsons · Dukes v. Board of County Commissioners
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although we have concluded that the hiring and firing of deputy clerks is within the province of the clerk of the district court, and that the administrative district judge and/or district judge is not empowered to decide who shall be hired or appointed to serve as deputy clerks, we recognize that the function of the court may be jeopardized should a clerk hire or appoint an incompetent, unqualified, irresponsible or untrusty person as a deputy to perform court-related duties. By statute, the clerk is liable on his official bond to any person injured by a deputy’s wrongful act or omission to perform any duty imposed by law. I.C. § 1-1003. But the smooth, efficient and proper operation of the court system itself may be nonetheless severely impaired or adversely affected depending upon the conduct of the court-related personnel. Therefore, the district judge, in the exercise of his supervisory power over the clerical activities of the clerk of the district court, controls the assignment of persons hired by the clerk. If the clerk makes an assignment of personnel to a judicial function which the judge finds unacceptable, he can refuse to accept that assignment.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“At first blush, this provision appears to give the county commissioners more power than they actually have. The county commissioners’ power, at least with respect to the clerk of the district court, is limited and cannot be exercised to override every hiring decision. Upon a showing to the proper tribunal that a deputy or clerical assistant is needed, the county commissioners must authorize the appointment. Dukes v. Board of County Commissioners, 17 Idaho 736 , 107 P. 491 (1910) (commissioners were ordered to authorize an appointment upon a district court’s finding that the business of the office of the clerk of the district court needed a deputy.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[Article 2, § 1] delineates the doctrine of separation of powers as it relates to the coordinate branches of government— where a power is given to department, another department cannot act. State ex rel. Hansen v. Parsons, 57 Idaho 775 , 69 P.2d 788 (1937). The legislature cannot exercise any supervisory power over the clerk of the court when exercising a judicial function, because the clerk is an arm of the judicial branch. The officer, when wearing a judicial hat, can only be supervised by an official judicial officer.”
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.