Martin v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 102 later decisions — most recently July 1997 · most notably 154 W. Va. 397 - State Ex Rel. Carson v. Wood (1970), Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (1965)
3 federal appellate · 38 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 State Ex Rel. Barney v. Hawkins · In re the Appointment of a Revisor of the Statutes · Butler v. Regents of the University · State ex rel. Gubbins v. Anson · National Distilling Co. v. Cream City Importing 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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is certain that a person employed cannot be a public officer, however chosen, unless there is devolved upon him by law the exercise of some portion of the sovereign power of the state in the exercise of which the public has a concern.””
12 later decisions quote this exact passage“". . . at common law where the nature and duties of two offices were such as to render it improper from considerations of public policy for one person to discharge the duties of both, a person could hold but one; that if one holding a public office accepts another incompatible with the one which he holds, he thereby vacates the first office. State ex rel. Nebraska Rep. State C. Com. v. Wait (1912), 92 Neb. 313 , 138 N.W. 159 , 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 282, 291, and cases cited. Sec. 13, art. XIV, of the constitution continues the common law in force in the territory of Wisconsin at the time of its adoption so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘Respondent claims that the application should be denied because he [the conservation director] is not a public officer and quo warranto does not lie. The contention is well taken for the following reasons : He is employed by the commission, not appointed or elected. [Citing.] No definite term of holding the employment is fixed. His salary may be anything the commission fixes not exceeding $6,500. His powers are in all things subordinate to those of the commission, and he must carry out its policies. He cannot even make rules, but must adopt those of the commission. Public officers must take an oath as prescribed by sec. 28, art. IV, of the constitution unless exempted therefrom. No exemption appears in the act and no requirement to take an oath. He is not required to give a bond. He is not required to be a citizen of the state, as he must be if a public officer. The reasons for holding that he is not a public officer are stronger in this case than in the case of Sieb v. Racine . . . more technical knowledge and ability is required of the.director of conservation than of a superintendent of schools.’ ””
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.