224 F. Supp. 2d 882 - Morrill v. Weaver’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
13 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 28 U.S.C. § 2284 · 28 U.S.C. § 2403 · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Younger v. Harris · Will v. Michigan Department of State Police · Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · Burford v. Sun Oil Co.
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If the Commonwealth defines “qualified electors” who are permitted to verify election petition signatures such that the phrase includes only registered' voters, then the statute is clearly unconstitutional under Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., 525 U.S. 182 , 119 S.Ct. 636 , 142 L.Ed.2d 599 (1999). Although lower state courts have construed the phrase “qualified electors” in other contexts, ... the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not specifically limited the phrase to apply to registered voters. We believe the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would attempt to give 25 [Pa. Stat. Ann.] § 2911(d) a constitutional construction, and hold that the term “qualified electors” applies to all residents of a particular electoral district.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[N]omination papers may be on one or more sheets and different sheets must be used for signers resident in different counties.... Each sheet shall have appended thereto the affidavit of some person, not necessarily a signer, and not necessarily the same person on each sheet, setting forth ... that they all reside in the county named in the affidavit....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Nader“Green Party candidates and activists from around Pennsylvania have their freedoms of political expression and association sharply curtailed, because they are prohibited from being affiants to nominating petitions for many candidates they support who happen to be running outside the districts in which they reside.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.