Pearson v. Jordan’s Empirical Analysis
1939
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently October 2013
12 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 Pittman v. Forbes
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“that the certificate should be signed by unbiased lawyers; and that `Such a purpose eliminates attorneys who represent a contestant at the time their investigation of the matter is made, or at the time his petition for a judicial review is filed.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The certificate of the two disinterested attorneys is just as important as the petition itself; and is jurisdictional.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he statute is mandatory, using as emphatic language as could be employed, under the circumstances.”
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.