State v. Scarth’s Empirical Analysis
1931
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently June 2012
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 Maben v. Rosser · Woods v. Varnum · Fuller v. Ellis · Rutter v. Territory of Oklahoma · City of Weatherford v. Rainey
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) an accusation of a public officer for offenses brought for the purpose of removal was not an indictment and was not objectionable on the grounds that it contained more than one offense; 2) such an action is neither civil nor criminal, but a special practice to protect the public from corrupt officials; 3) the purpose is not to punish the offender as the case would be in a eriminal prosecution for a crime; 4) due process is provided within the statutes governing the proceeding; 5) a defendant cannot stand on the technicalities which have been or may be devised in the testing and trial of a criminal indietment; and 6) unlike a criminal charge, there is no arrest, bail, fine or imprisonment, merely a speedy, accessible relief, on behalf of the people who have elected the official who is charged.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Price“[T]here is good reason for this position found not only in the express direction of the statute . . . but also in the fact that no criminal punishment is imposed as a result of a verdict of guilty of the matters charged in the accusation; but that the judgment founded thereon shall be “removal from office” — a relief which should be ready, speedy and accessible in behalf of the people who have selected the official, and who ought to, if the charge of the corruption and willful misconduct of officials whom they have elected has been sustained upon an accusation expressed in such plain and simple language as that a person of plain and common understanding may know what is intended.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Russell v. Henderson“is defined to be an ordinary proceeding in a court of justice in which a party prosecutes another party for the enforcement or protection of a right, the redress or prevention of a wrong, or the punishment of a public offense. All other remedies are classed as”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Price
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.