Walker v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A competing principle, set out in Code of 1942, Sec. 3167, is that where there has been such a substantial failure to comply in material particulars with the requirements of the Corrupt Practices Act that ‘it is impossible to arrive at the will of the voters’, the entire box may be thrown out or the court may order another election to be held. For example, in Hayes v. Abney, supra, the court found that there was a total departure from the statutory requirements by failure of the managers to have voters sign receipts for their ballots, and declared the primary election void. To the same effect are Briggs v. Gautier, 1943, 195 Miss. 472 , 15 So. 2d 209 ; May v. Layton, Miss., 56 So. 2d 89 . “What constitutes such a substantial failure to comply in material particulars with the requirements of the statutes in a primary election, which would fall within the foregoing classification so as to require the throwing out of a box or calling a new election, depends upon the facts and circumstances in each particular case, including the nature of the procedural requirements violated, the scope of the violations, and the ratio of illegal votes to the total votes cast. For example, in May v. Layton, supra, 836 votes out of a total of 2213 were held to be illegal, and it was said that this result, by holding void more than one-third of the total votes cast, made it impossible to determine the will of the voters and constituted such a substantial failure to comply with the statutes as to re”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ulmer v. Currie · 443 So. 2d 1191 - Noxubee County Democratic E. Com. v. Russell

2. “[T]he legislature was endeavoring to provide means for absent voters to exercise their right of suffrage. The result, therefore, ought not to be lightly tossed aside, unless the irregularity has prevented a full, fair and free expression of the public will. Especially is this true when the special tribunal found as a fact that there was no fraud or intentional wrongdoing in this regard.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 424 So. 2d 559 - Fouche v. Ragland · 676 So. 2d 1206 - Roe v. Mobile County Appointment Bd.

3. “"In the present case, there were 80 illegal votes, and a total vote of 1229, the illegal votes being only 6.5% of the total votes cast. We do not think that the present facts would warrant the court in saying that there is such a substantial failure to comply in material particulars with the statutes as to invalidate the election, as occurred in May v. Layton, supra, and only under such a state of facts is the contestant's burden of proof reduced from a showing that the contestee's illegal votes if eliminated would change the result, to proving only that enough illegal votes were cast to change the result or leave it in doubt. Appellee therefore failed to meet his burden of proof in contesting Walker's nomination." 213 Miss. at 265 , 57 So.2d at 167.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 381 So. 2d 627 - Pyron v. Joiner