Ekwall v. Stadelman’s Empirical Analysis
1934
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2004
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 13 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 Lámar v. United States · State ex rel. Chandler v. Howell · Holman v. Lutz · State ex rel. Reynolds v. Howell
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““§3. . . . “[3.] No person shall be a senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen. “§5. [1.] Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, . . . . ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The Constitution and laws of the United States determine what shall be the qualifications for federal offices, and state Constitutions and laws can neither add to nor take away from them. This has been repeatedly decided in Congress in the case of persons elected to seats therein, when provisions in the state Constitution, if valid, would render them ineligible.” “Legislative elections are -determined by the body for a. seat in which the election is had. This is expressly so provided by the Constitution in the case of the two houses of Congress, and the judiciary can in no manner interfere with their conclusions.” Cooley’s General Principles of Constitutional Law, 3d Ed., pp. 285, 290. See also: State ex rel. Chandler v. Howell (1918), 104 Wash. 99 , 175 P. 569 ; Ekwall v. Stadelman (1934), 146 Ore. 439 , 30 P. 2d 1037, 1039 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.