Stanley v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

55 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. “The next question requiring consideration is defendant's plea of prematurity, which is predicated on the contention that defendant has never been charged, placed on trial, or convicted in the criminal courts on any of the charges set out in the petition, a prerequisite for the institution of a suit for the removal from office. Defendant's brief does not contain any argument in support of the plea. For our own part, we do not find any merit in it.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Melerine · State v. Melerine

2. ““All State and district officers, whether elected or appointed, shall he liable to impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors in office, incompetency, corruption, favoritism, extortion, or oppression in office, or for gross misconduct, or habitual drunkenness.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State ex rel. Burns v. Fornea · Stanley v. Jones

3. “‘.‘Defendant filed an exception of no cause or right of action, the first ground of which is leveled at the offenses it is alleged he committed prior to his present term óf office. Defendant contends that these offenses which are set forth in articles 16 to 22 of the petition, both inclusive, do not furnish a cause for his removal from office. “The petition, in paragraph 2, shows that the defendant served a term as judge of the Tenth Judicial District Court for the period of 1920 to 1924. He was again elected to the office for the term beginning January 1, 1931, and was re-elected in 1936 to hold the office until 1943. The defendant has served a six-year term beginning January 1, 1931, and is at present serving another term of six . years • to run through the year 1942. “This exception is in effect that the scope of the hearing should be limited to the offenses which the petition alleges were committed by defendant since his last election to the office in the month of November, 1936. * * % * . * * "As shown in the annotation in question, 17 A.L.R. at .page .285,. although there are many cases holding that misconduct in prior terms of office is not ground for rfemoval of a public officer, there is an equal number of cases to the contrary effect, that such misconduct may constitute ground for removal or impeachment. This state is listed among the states among which the latter rule prevails. And the cases referred to are State ex rel. Attorney General v. Lazarus, 39 La.Ann. 142 ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State ex rel. Burns v. Fornea