Stephens v. Stephens’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

60 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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““So far as we have been able to discover, the courts have uniformly held, where an affidavit of bias and prejudice is in the language of the statute, the presiding judge can perform no other function in connection with the case other than to make an order that the trial be had before another judge, as provided by the statute. The truth of the affidavit filed is not what disqualifies the judge, but the affidavit itself. ’ ’”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bolen v. Quihuiz · Speakman v. Sullivan

2. “"But two or three orders had been entered by the court, one of which required the appellant to pay the costs of appellee's witnesses up to the date of the last continuance. Appellee suggests that it was this order mulcting appellant for costs that prompted the latter to make his application for a change, and it is urged that an adverse ruling of that kind ought not to be allowed as a pretext or excuse for an affidavit of bias or prejudice. Whether that is the reason or not does not appear. The law does not require the affiant to give or assign any reason or reasons for his belief that he cannot have a fair and impartial trial because of the judge's bias or prejudice or interest. It requires him to make and file the affidavit and prescribes its contents, but it does not make it a condition of the affidavit that it shall be true, nor will it weigh or estimate the motive for making it. So then it matters not what may have prompted the affidavit, if it complies with the law and was made and filed in time."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Marsin v. Udall

3. ““If either party to a civil action brought in any superior court shall file an affidavit alleging either: “(1) That the judge of said court has been engaged as counsel in the case prior to his appointment or- election as judge, or is otherwise interested in the case. “(2) That said judge is of tin or related to either party. “(3) That the said judge is a material witness in the case. ‘£ (4) That the affiant has cause to believe and does believe that on account of the bias or prejudice or interest of said judge he cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial. “It shall be the duty of said judge to at once request the judge of the superior court of some other county to hold the superior court in the county where such action is pending, and to preside at the trial of such action, and to hear all the matters involved therein.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Conkling v. Crosby