Harrison v. Jay’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently August 2014 · most notably Honts v. Shaw (1998), Henn v. City of Amarillo (1957)
40 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 Davis v. State ex rel. Wren · 53 Tex. Civ. App. 306 - McCormick v. Jester · Wintermann v. McDonald · 50 Tex. Civ. App. 623 - Wallis v. Williams · Yoakum County v. Gaines County
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Article 2.06 of the Election Code, V.A.T.S., is very clear and provides: ‘All voters shall vote in the election precinct in which they reside’. This language needs no' construction or explanation and by its very terms requires that a voter must cast his vote in the voting precinct where he resides. The decided cases have held this requirement must be obeyed if the vote is to be counted. McCormick v. Jester, 1909, 53 Tex.Civ.App. 306 , 115 S.W. 278 , writ dismissed, want of jurisdiction ; Linger v. Balfour, Tex.Civ.App. 1912, 149 S.W. 795 ; Major v. Loy, Tex. Civ.App.1941, 155 S.W.2d 617 ; Spraggins v. Smith, Tex.Civ.App.1948, 214 S.W.2d 815 ; Tondre v. Hensley, Tex. Civ.App.1949, 223 S.W.2d 671 ; State ex rel. Lukovich v. Johnston, Tex.Civ. App.1950, 228 S.W.2d 327 , writ dismissed, want of jurisdiction * * * When a voter leaves his own polling place to vote at a polling place not used by the voting residents of his own residence district, his ballot has not been allowed to count.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Our courts have repeatedly held that the judgments of commissioners’ courts, in all matters over which they are given jurisdiction, are entitled to the same consideration as those of other courts provided for by the Constitution; and that such judgments are not subject to collateral attack, and are reviewable only upon appeal or in a direct action for that purpose, in the absence of a showing of gross abuse of discretion, or of fraud or collusion or lack of jurisdiction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.