Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 114 KY 447 - Bates v. Crumbaugh

Bates v. Crumbaugh’s Empirical Analysis

1902

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
6
states following
June 1955
most recently cited

23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently June 1955

23 state decisions

70190219101920193019401950decided

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 Parvin v. Wimberg

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

  1. ““There is good ground for recognizing a distinction between the obligations placed upon the individual voter and those matters which relate to the duties .of election officers. Great care should be taken to distinguish between those requirements designed to prevent fraud, and which are necessary to the purity of elections, and those which, while designed for the same purpose, are not essential thereto, or we may overreach the salutary effect sought to be obtained from'provisions of the character first mentioned by going so far, in construing as valid and mandatory provisions of the second class, as to open the very door to fraud that was sought to be closed thereby. The individual voter may well be called upon to see that the requirements of the law applying to himself are complied with before casting his ballot; and, if he should willfully or carelessly violate the same, there would be no hardship or injustice in depriving him of his vote; but if, on the other hand, he should, in good faith, comply with the law upon his part, it would be a great hardship were he deprived of his ballot through some fault or mistake of an election officer in failing to comply with a provision of the law over which the voter had not control. It is also a question in which the public has a direct and important interest, for the loss of such vote may have a controlling effect upon a public matter.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““While the provision may be regarded as mandatory with regard to the officer, and his failure may subject him to punishment, it shall not disfranchise»' the voter who is not guilty of the violation.””
    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.