Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 114 Md. 58 - Cull v. Wheltle

Cull v. Wheltle’s Empirical Analysis

1910

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
March 2008
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2008

18 state decisions

601910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Gregory v. . Mayor, Etc., of New York · Emmitt v. . Mayor, Etc., of New York · Miles v. Stevenson · Robb v. Carter · State ex rel. Douglas v. Megaarden

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

  1. “Far better would it be to possibly suffer some occasional inconvenience or loss to the state by reason of the incompetency or even misconduct of some public official, than to subject one believed to be worthy of election or appointment to the mortification and indignity of being even temporarily removed merely because charges are preferred against him, for it is useless to suggest that an officer is not seriously injured in both his individual and official capacities by a suspension from office, although he may be eventually acquitted of the charges against him. On his trial he has the opportunity of letting the public, as well as the tribunal before whom he is tried, judge whether he is guilty or innocent, but a suspension on charges — in this case not even under oath — would not only deprive him of his office for the time being without a hearing, but almost necessarily carry with it some suggestion of guilt before he has an opportunity to vindicate himself. There is no necessity for such procedure, and we are satisfied that our laws do not contemplate it, however it may be regarded in other jurisdictions.”
    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.