Allen v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1913
Citation profile
48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Adams v. Bolin (1952), Hernandez v. Frohmiller (1949)
48 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 Field v. Clark · Harwood v. Wentworth · Constitutional Prohibitory Amendment · Green v. Weller · Brodnax v. Groom
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““After the contest was ended and the election over, the claim is for the first time made that after all there was nothing in fact before the people; that this whole canvass, excitement and struggle was simply a stupendous farce, meaning nothing, accomplishing nothing. This is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. This court has again and again recognized the doctrine lying at the foundation of popular governments that in elections the will of the majority controls, and that mere irregularities or informalities in the conduct of an election are impotent to thwart the expressed will of such majority.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The cases cited may be distinguished in particulars, but the principle announced and adhered to is that the judicial department must keep within its sphere; that it must not arrogate to itself a superiority over the other two co-ordinate and coequal departments of the government, and erect itself into a tribunal to watch with jealous scrutiny the acts confided by the fundamental law to another department; in short, the doctrine that the records of the legislative and executive departments of the government, when promulgated and authenticated and deposited with the legal custodian thereof, as provided in the Constitution, import a verity which is conclusive upon the judicial department, and which record may not be impeached by any evidence aliunde such record is sturdily vindicated in them all. . . . “Mandatory provisions of the Constitution as to the making of laws are directed to the attention of the legislative department, and are binding on the conscience of those whose duty it is to observe them. This is likewise true of the executive and judicial departments within their sphere. Until the people, through their fundamental law, shall require the courts to supervise and direct the actions of the other departments in the process of making laws, we shall adhere to the theory of government that those departments are responsible to the people for any neglect of duty, and not to the courts, and that their records, when authenticated as required by the Constitution and presente”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Section 11, art. 7, of the Constitution, designates the biennial election to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November ‘a general election,’ and it is none the less ‘a general election’ because some of the officers therein mentioned are not voted for. An election for Representative in Congress and presidential electors is a general election in fact, because it is state-wide, permitting all qualified voters to vote, and because it is so named by both the organic and statutory law. The phrase ‘next regular general election’ occurs but the one time in the Constitution. ‘A general election,’ and ‘the general election last preceding,’ and ‘the last preceding general election,’ ‘first general election thereafter,’ and ‘general state election’ occur. We are not now concerned as to whether these varied expressions describe the same kind of an election, or different elections. Suffice it to say that the election at which chapter 82 was submitted was the ‘next regular general election’ held after the referendum petition was filed against it in the office of the Secretary of State. ‘In the case of any particular statute, the construction can be determined only by considering the context in which the word is found, the purpose of the statute, and the object which it was designed to fulfill. The next regular election may mean the next election at which officers are to be regularly elected, or it may merely be used to exclude special elections, or it may be used syno”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hudson v. Cummard
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.