Delgado v. Chavez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 26 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““On the 13th of January, 1891, Abraham Staab, William Nesbitt, and Juan Garcia filed in the district court of the First judicial district of the territory of ’ Nfew Mexico, and presented to the Judge thereof, their petition showing, as they claimed, that they had been elected at the general election in November preceding members of the board of county ty commissioners of Santa Fe county, in the territory of New Mexico; and further alleged that on the 2d day of January, 1891, they had duly qualified as such commissioners; that at the same election Pedro Delgado had been duly elected probate clerk of said county, and had qualified as such officer; that by virtue thereof he became and .was the acting clerk of the.board of county commissioners, and had possession of the records; books, files, and papers of that office; that after their qualifications as such board they demanded of him to produce the books and to record their proceedings as such board; and that he refused so to do, or to in any manner recognize them as' the board of county commissioners. They prayed that a writ of mandamus might issue commanding him to recognize them as the board of county commissioners, that he act with them as such board, and that he enter of record their proceedings as a board. Upon this petition an alternative writ was issued; and on the 15th day of January, in obedience to such writ, appellant appeared and filed his answer, alleging facts,’ which, as he claimed, showed that three other person”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Matney v. King

2. “"It was enough in this case for the court to determine, and it must be presumed that the evidence placed before it was sufficient to authorize an adjudication, that the petitioners were commissioners de facto. As such, the clerk was bound to obey their commands and record their proceedings, * * * and it, as must be assumed from the decision found that these petitioners rather than their contestants, were the ' commissioners de facto. * * * Who would doubt, if these petitioners were, the unquestioned commissioner of the county that mandamus would lie to compel the clerk to recognize them, and record on the county books their proceedings, as such? Does the fact that certain parties are contesting their rights as commissioners oust the court of jurisdiction, or forbid it to compel other county officers to recognize them? Must the office of county commissioners remain practically vacant, and the affairs of the county unadmini^tered, pending a trial of a right of office between contestants? Surely not; public interests forbid. They require that the office should be filled: ■ and that when filled by parties under color of right, all other officers should recognize them as commissioners until their right to hold the office has been judicially determined adversely, by proper quo warranto proceedings.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jaramillo v. State Ex Rel. Board of County Com'rs

3. ““This section gives full authority for these proceedings. The original application was entitled ‘in the court,’ though addressed to tlje judge, as was proper. The hearing and judgment were by the court, and the peremptory mandamus was issued by direction of the court; and the power of the legislature to provide that the court; shall always be open for certain purposes cannot be doubted.” 140 U. S. 588 , 11 Sup. Ct. 875 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Butler v. United States