Ralph v. Brough’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently October 2003
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 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 Escobedo v. Illinois · Linkletter v. Walker · 62 Cal. 2d 338 - People v. Dorado · Idaho Sheet Metal Works, Inc. v. Wirtz · Torcaso v. Watkins
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Even if they were not de jure judges, they met all the tests of de facto judges. The general rule with respect to the validity of the official acts of de facto judges is set out in. 30A Am.Jur., Judges, § 234, as follows: ‘It is the general rule that acts performed by a de facto judge are not invalid. A judge de facto is, to all intents and purposes, a judge de jure as to all persons except the state. Thus, the official acts of a de facto judge are just as valid for all purposes as those of a de jure judge, so far as the public or third persons who are interested therein are concerned, and their validity may not be collaterally attacked.’ In McDowell v. United States, 159 U.S. 596 , 16 S.Ct. 111, 112 , 40 L.Ed. 271 (1895), the Supreme Court stated: ‘Judge Seymour must be held to have been a judge de facto, if not a judge de jure, and his actions as such, so far as they affect third persons, are not open to question.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Baker v. State““The decision of the Supreme Court in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U. S. 488 , 81 S. Ct. 1680 , 6 L. Ed. 2d 982 (1961), indicates that if a person who had been appointed or elected judge did not believe in the existence of God, he could have refused to make the prescribed declaration, and could have obtained his commission by mandamus, as Torcaso did. It does not require a holding that the judges of the various courts of the State of Maryland are not legal and constitutional judges, because they made the declaration at the time they took office. This Court holds that the judges who heard Ralph’s case in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County and the judges of the Court of Appeals of Maryland were de jure judges.””
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.