Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 194 KY 804 - Whitney v. Skinner

Whitney v. Skinner’s Empirical Analysis

1922

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
2
states following
December 1989
most recently cited

33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently December 1989 · most notably Marilla v. Ratterman (1925), Dietz v. Zimmer (1929)

33 state decisions

1101922193019401950196019701980decided

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 Francis v. Sturgill · Hermann v. Lampe · Muncy v. Duff · Major v. Barker · King v. McMahan

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

  1. ““No officers are provided for, except a mayor, two commissioners, a police judge and a prosecuting attorney. All others necessary for the conduct of the government are to be provided by the board of commissioners. The elective officers of the city must be nominated for the several offices to be filled in what is called a primary election to be held on the third Saturday preceding the election. The two persons receiving the highest number of votes for each of the offices to be filled at the following municipal election are nominated as candidates for the offices, severally, and their nominations are certified to the county court clerk by the election officers, and this certificate is the warrant for the clerk of the county court to cause the names of the nominees to be printed upon the ballots to be used at the city election.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “' “It is not conceivable, that it was intended, that nominations of candidates for it should not be made in the primary provided for all the other elective officers of the city, but, that an incumbent for it was left to be selected at the regular primary for the nomination of county, state and district officers, when tfie object and purpose of tfie adoption of tfie commission form of government was to eradicate all party political considerations in tfie selection of tfie officers for tfie city.””
    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.