Shepherd v. Sartain’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

64 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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"` [T]o preserve a pure public policy, state Constitutions and statutes frequently provide that one and the same person shall not, at the same time, hold an office of profit or trust both under the state and under the national government, or that persons holding judicial offices shall not, at the same time, hold other offices of trust or profit, or that the same person shall not, at the same time, hold two offices of profit or trust, or the like. Such provisions cover substantially the same ground as the common-law inhibition against the same person holding incompatible offices at the same time, and they also, in many cases, go further, and arbitrarily prohibit the holding of two offices which, at common law, would not be deemed to be incompatible....' "... It is only the holding—that is, the occupation—of two offices at the same time that offends public policy and is therefore forbidden by law.... [I]t is `the acceptance and qualification for the second office' which vacates the first, not merely the acceptance; the incompatibility of the two offices depending upon the inability of the holder to consistently discharge the duties of each."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 740 So. 2d 999 - Johnson v. BD. OF CONTROL OF EMP. RETIREMENT SYSTEM

2. “Reading section 187 of the Constitution along with sections 316 and 320 of the Code, and construing them in connection with the entire system of laws relating to elections in this state, although, considered separately, their language might bear a less stringent meaning, we hold that, when a registered voter changes his legal residence from one county to another, he must register again in the county of his new residence in order to entitle him to vote therein. The imputation of any other meaning to the provisions referred to, though the requirement is expressed in negative terms, would reduce the whole scheme of registration to practical futility. An intention to destroy so valuable an agency by making re-registration permissive, merely, ought not to be imputed to_ the lawmakers if their language will reasonably bear a mandatory meaning, and we think it clearly does.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Haas v. McCrary

3. “It is clear that the rule forbidding the holding of two offices at the same time, whether at the common law or under Constitutions and statutes, never contemplated a disability to be elected to the second office, but, on the contrary, conclusively affirms the legality and efficiency of such election. It is only the holding—that is, the occupation—of two offices at the same time that offends public policy, and is therefore forbidden by law.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 740 So. 2d 999 - Johnson v. BD. OF CONTROL OF EMP. RETIREMENT SYSTEM