State ex rel. Everding v. Simon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

43 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““* * * it is clear that when by the constitution or law, officers are elected or appointed for a term, and until their successors are elected and qualified, they are thereby authorized to hold and exercise their offices until their successors are duly elected or appointed under some existing provision of law. The right to hold over is derived from the same constitution that imposes the limitation upon the legislature in the creation of the office. The constitution permits a legislative tenure for a fixed term not exceeding four years, and if at the expiration of that period, from any cause such as failure of the legislature to provide for the election of his successor (People ex rel. v. Hammond, 66 Cal. 654 ); or of the regular appointing power to make an appointment (State v. Howe, 25 Ohio St. 588 ); or of the electoral body to elect (State v. Harrison, 113 Ind. 434 ; People v. Oulton, 28 Cal. 44 ; People v. Stratton, 28 Cal. 382 ; State v. Lusk, 18 Mo. 333 ); or the death of the person elected to fill the office before he has qualified (Commonwealth v. Hanley, 9 Pa. St. 513), no successor has been elected or appointed under an existing law, the incumbent holds over by virtue of the provisions of the constitution until he is superseded by a duly qualified successor wbo shall have been elected or appointed in the manner provided by law. (People v. Woodruff, 32 N. Y. 355 ; People v. Batchelor, 22 N. Y. 128 ; Mecham on Office § 397; State v. Davis, 45 N. J. L. 390; People v. Ti”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State Ex Rel. Smith v. Tazwell

2. ““The rule seems to be that statutes and parts of statutes, omitted from a revision, are to be considered annulled, and cannot be revived by construction. They cannot be read into the latter statute so as to restrict its operation, and this, although it seems likely that the omissions were unintentional: Endlich, Int. of Stat., §§ 202, 384; Woodbury v. Berry, 18 Ohio St. 456 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Lightner

3. ““* * * public policy requires that the duties of the office be performed, and it is better that the incumbent should continue in the office and in the performance of its duties than that an interregnum should occur.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State Ex Rel. Smith v. Tazwell