Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 22 NM 30 - Carabajal v. Sandoval

Carabajal v. Sandoval’s Empirical Analysis

1916

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
November 1982
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently November 1982

1 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

3019161920193019401950196019701980decided

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 The People v. . Cook · Parvin v. Wimberg · Taylor v. Taylor · City of Beardstown v. City of Virginia · People ex rel. Williams v. Cicott

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

  1. ““The authorities uniformly hold that statutes regulating the mere mode of conducting elections are directory, and that any departure from any prescribed mode will not vitiate an election if the irregularity does not deprive any legal voter of his vote or admit a disqualified voter to vote, or cast uncertainty on the result, and has not been occasioned by the agency of a party seeking to derive benefit from it.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Those provisions of a statute which affect the time and place of the election, and the legal qualifications of_ the electors, are generally of the substance of the election, while those touching the recording and return of the legal votes received, and the mode and manner of conducting the mere details of the election, are directory.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““We hold that the evidence of a voter as to how he voted at an election is incompetent in a contested election case, in the absence of proof establishing fraud or corruption on the part of the election officers, sufficient to invalidate the election returns and the original ballots.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.