Lorch v. Lohmeyer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 state decisions

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.

1. “. . And in the canvass of the votes any member of the election board may protest as to the counting of any ballot, or any part thereof, and any ballot which is not indorsed with the initial of the clerks, as provided for in this act [3-1-1-11 — 3-1-33-2], and any ballot which shall bear any distinguishing mark or mutilation shall be void, and shall not be counted, and any ballot, or part of a ballot, from which it is impossible to determine the elector’s choice of candidates, shall not be counted as to the candidate, or candidates, affected thereby; and all ballots, voted and not voted, together with all protested, disputed or uncounted ballots and certificates of the election board and tally sheets, shall be preserved . . .” (Our emphasis.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Porter v. Bainbridge · 170 Ind. App. 37 - Miles v. Eltzroth

2. “Tt seems clear that the sole intention of the Legislature by the enactment of this provision was to provide a proper identification of absent voters’ ballots whereby not only the voter who received the ballot, but the various election board officials, would be able to determine, upon examination of the ballot, whether or not it was a valid official ballot which had been sent out from the county clerk’s office in the manner provided by law. When the county clerk has performed his duty in connection with the signing, sealing and mailing of absent voters’ ballots in such a way as to authenticate and identify them in .such a manner as to cause the voter who received them, upon inspection thereof, to conclude, that the ballot is official, and such authentication and identification is accepted as being proper, by the various election board officials in all the precincts to which any absent voters’ ballots are returned, then it must be said that such authentication and identification satisfies the requirements of the statute.’ Brown v. Grzeskowiak (1951), 230 Ind. 110, 133, 134 , 101 N.E.2d 639 , 102 N.E.2d 372 .’ The ballots in the case at bar meet the above test in every-way. The Trial Court was, therefore, correct in his decision that these ballots be counted.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 170 Ind. App. 37 - Miles v. Eltzroth

3. ““As to Exhibits Nos, 7, 8, 21, 31, 34, 43, 44, 63, 64 and 67, an examination of these ballots discloses that none of them contains the poll clerks’ initials thereon. This Court has previously held that an absentee voter’s ballot is not invalid merely because the Election Board’s poll clerks fail to-initial the back thereof where the voter has fully complied with all the legal requirements and has placed the ballot beyond his control. Boone v. Smith (1947), 225 Ind. 617 , 77 N.E.2d 357 ; Wright v. Walker (1926), 197 Ind. 561 , 151 N.E. 424 . The case of Sims v. George (1968), 250 Ind. 595 , 14 Ind. Dec. 339 , 236 N.E.2d 820 , has been erroneously annotated as holding that absentee ballots without poll clerks’ initials are invalid. Although the opinion describes the questioned ballots as not bearing such initials it further describes other defects and holds the ballots invalid because of those defects and not because of the absence of the poll clerks’ initials.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 170 Ind. App. 37 - Miles v. Eltzroth