Wall v. Currie’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 14 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““* * * ‘Except to the extent that jurisdiction is conferred by statute or that the subject has been regulated by statute, the courts have no power to interfere with the judgments of the constituted authorities of established political parties in matters involving party government and discipline, to determine disputes within a political party as to the regularity of the election of its executive officers, or their removal, or to determine contests for the position of party committeemen or convention delegates.’ 29 C.J.S., Elections, § 88, pp. 121-122.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dick v. Kazen · In Re Cahill

2. ““At the very outset we must decide if this cause presents a justiciable matter for the courts, or if the Legislature has taken such jurisdiction away from the courts and lodged the jurisdiction over contests of this character solely within the party convention and other party machinery. * * ⅜ * * * “Article 3146 was one of the articles amended, and it now provides that all contests shall be decided within the political party, ‘except for a place on party tickets for public elective offices’. When Articles 3107 and 3146 are construed together, the conclusion is inescapable that respondents were not seeking places on the party tickets for public elective offices, and the action of the convention was final. The rule is well settled in this State that the contest of an election, lacking the elements of a civil suit, is a political rather than a judicial question, and the courts under their general powers, legal and equitable, have no jurisdiction of such controversy. 16 Tex. Jur. p. 135, § 111. “The District Court did not have jurisdiction to try the matters alleged by respondents relating to the political offices they sought to retain, nor did it have jurisdiction to issue the temporary injunction against petitioners; and the trial court and the Court of Civil Appeals erred in holding that it did have such jurisdiction.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Runyon v. Kent

3. ““It is well established in this state, as well as in a majority of the other states, that officers of a political party, such as members of a party executive committee, are not public or governmental officers, even when provided for by statutory law. Walker v. Mobley, 101 Tex. 28 , 103 S.W. 490 ; McCombs v. Stevenson, Tex.Civ.App., 195 S.W.2d 566 ; Walker v. Hopping, Tex.Civ.App., 226 S.W. 146 ; People v. Kramer, 328 Ill. 512 , 160 N.E. 60 ; Attorney-General v. Barry, 74 N.H. 353 , 68 A. 192 ; Commonwealth v. Dunkle, 355 Pa. 493 , 50 A.2d 496 , 169 A.L.R. 1277 ; 18 Am.Jur. p. 271; 34 Tex.Jur. p. 332.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Martinez v. Democratic Committee for Responsible Government