Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 16 IDAHO 769 - Bradfield v. Avert

Bradfield v. Avert’s Empirical Analysis

1909

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
5
states following
June 1989
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 1989

8 state decisions

30190919101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Hoy v. State, ex rel. Buchanan · State ex rel. Off v. Smith · State ex rel. Schuet v. Murray · People ex rel. Marshall v. Leonard · Smith v. Moore

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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ * * *. The word ‘eligibility’ as used in connection with an office or the person to be elected to fill an office has been variously defined by the courts and various constructions given to the use of such word with reference to whether the same applies to the election to office or the induction into office. The authorities upon both sides of this question are cited in 29 Cyc. 1376, and 10 Ency. of Law, pp. 970, 971. We are satisfied that the better reason is with the proposition that where the word ‘eligibility’ is used in connection with an office, and there are no explanatory words indicating that such word is used with reference to the time of election, it has reference to the qualification to hold the office rather than the qualification to be elected to the office.” (Citations omitted.) 16 Idaho at 774 , 102 P. at 689 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “« sH ❖ * “2. When the incumbent was not eligible to the office at the time of the election. * * *”
    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.