State Ex Rel. Ayer v. Ewing’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
67 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably STATE EX REL. GIVENS, ETC. v. Marion S. Ct., Rm. 1 (1954), Wedmore v. State (1954)
67 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 Sherfey v. City of Brazil · State v. Barrett · State ex rel. Workman v. Goldthait · State Ex Rel. Fry v. Superior Court of Lake County · State Ex Rel. Wever v. Reeves
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"1. That the relator resides in Marion County, in the State of Indiana, and is a taxpayer in said County and State. "2. That Lester R. Durham is a member of the Board of Commissioners of Marion County, Indiana, having been elected to such office in the year 1956, and having taken his oath of office on January 1st, 1957, and that his term of office will expire on December 31st, 1959. "3. That ever since January 1st, 1959, the said respondent Lester R. Durham, has refused and neglected to perform the official duties pertaining to his office, in this, to-wit: "A. That he has failed and refused to approve the bond of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Marion County, Indiana, despite the fact that he was mandated so to do, by the Circuit Court of Marion County, Indiana, as a result of which he was found guilty of being in contempt of said Circuit Court and fined the sum of $1,000.00. "B. That in consort with one Eph W. Virt, a former County Commissioner of Marion County, Indiana, now deceased, he held secret meetings, to the exclusion of County Commissioner J. Wesley Brown, as a result of which the respondent herein and the said Eph W. Virt, now deceased, signed illegal contracts, issued unauthorized and illegal purchasing orders, changed and altered contracts, all without the knowledge, consent or approval of County Commissioner, J.J. Wesley Brown and without informing the said commissioner of his actions. "C. Had ordered and issued purchase orders for road work in a manner not pr”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Section 35 of the Act is almost identical with the summary removal provisions of the removal act of Nevada, concerning which Chief Justice McCarran, now Senator McCarran, in Ex Parte Jones and Gregory (1918), 41 Nev. 523, 532, 533 , 173 Pac. 885, 888 , wrote: “ ‘The statute which gives rise to this proceeding is one for the removal of certain officers. It is. part of our law, made so by legislative will. The •whole procedure is denominated as being summary; hence it precludes the right to jury trial. Into the hands of the district judge this statute lays one of the most sacred duties, that of removing an individual from the enjoyment of public position of trust and honor. The law, in my judgment, contains nothing which recommends itself to the spirit of democracy. It partakes of none of the progressive inspiration which gave rise to the historic scene at Runnymede. It is an extreme and extraordinary measure, intended only for extreme and extraordinary occasions. It is fraught with seriousness and a demand for extreme caution both from the standpoint of him who prefers the charge and him who listens and pronounces judgment.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“All State officers shall, for crime, incapacity, or negligence, be liable to be removed from office, either by impeachment ... or by a joint resolution of the General Assembly ....”
2 later decisions 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.