Friedman v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 7 state decisions

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. “The merits of term limits, or “rotation,” have been the subject of debate since the formation of our Constitution, when the Framers unanimously rejected a proposal to add such limits to the Constitution. The cogent arguments on both sides of the question that were articulated during the process of ratification largely retain their force today. Over half the States have adopted measures to impose such limits on some offices either directly or indirectly, and the Nation as a whole, notably by constitutional amendment, has imposed a limit on the number of terms the President may serve. Term limits, like any other qualification for office unquestionably restrict the ability of voters to vote for whom they wish. On the other hand, such limits may provide for the infusion of flesh ideas and new perspective, and may decrease the likelihood that representatives will lose touch with their constituents. It is not our province to resolve this longstanding debate.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 993 F. Supp. 1041 - Citizens for Legislative Choice v. Miller

2. “Although “privity” is not a clearly defined concept under California law, it generally refers to persons who are so identified in interest with the parties to the original action that it is proper to bind them along with the parties to the original litigation. California courts look to whether the relationship between the party in the earlier suit and the nonparty bringing the current suit is “sufficiently close” to justify preclusion of the latter. Due process requires at a minimum that the party to be estopped must have had an identity or community of interest with, and adequate representation by, the losing party in the first action, and should reasonably have expected to be bound by the prior adjudication.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 603 F. App'x 553 - Zurich American Insurance v. Lim & Nascimento Engineering Corp.

3. “[T]erm limits on state officeholders is a neutral candidacy qualification, such as age or residence, which the State certainly has the right to impose.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gerberding v. Munro