Borders v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1900
Citation profile
57 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently January 2006 · most notably Summers v. State (1967), State Ex Rel. Ayer v. Ewing (1952)
57 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 Parvin v. Wimberg · Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati & Indianapolis Railway Co. v. Wynant · Boardman v. Griffin · Stevens v. Reynolds · Bechtel v. Albin
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““These provisions of the statute must be construed together in determining when the character provided by law shall be regarded such a distinguishing mark as to invalidate the ballot. It is clear from the law itself that the legislature intended it should be so regarded only when its position upon the ballot makes doubtful the intention of the voter, or casts suspicion upon the integrity of the vote.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Craney v. Traylor““It is purity of election and a free and honest expression of the voter’s will that is aimed at, and a substantial compliance with the law in the execution of the ballot will suffice if the general appearance of the ballot is such as clearly to indicate an honest effort by the voter to comply with the law, and his choice of candidates may be clearly ascertained.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Nicely v. Wildey““. . . ; and, if the elector desires to vote a mixed ticket, he shall omit the mark from the circle inclosing the party device, and indicate his choice of candidates by making a cross in the square immediately preceding their names; and a mark upon the ballot in violation of .these provisions shall be treated as a distinguishing mark.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Craney v. Traylor
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.