Trussell v. Fish’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably 28 Wash. App. 319 - In Re the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of Santore (1981), 155 N.J. Super. 129 - Houman v. Mayor & Coun. Bor. Pompton Lakes (1977)
33 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 Henderson v. Gladish · Taaffe v. Sanderson · Matthews v. Bailey, Governor · Cain v. Carllee · McLain v. Fish
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.
““In most of the cases where effect of the collector’s failure to make the affidavit is discussed (see third footnote) it is said that there must be substantial compliance with the statute, and to this rule we adhere. The question is, What is substantial compliance? and it follows that proof in a particular case regarding intent and effect must first be considered before an answer can be formulated. “There would be a subversion of purpose and a sacrifice of popular will if we should say that in a primary election the unintentional failure of a ministerial officer to perform strictly all functions which are made mandatory with respect to verification of poll tax lists, continues to be imperative after the lists, unaffected by fraud, and substantially correct in all other essentials, have performed the service intended by the legislative authority. ’ ’”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Moody v. Logan
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.