Fitzgerald v. Morlock’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently June 2009
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 In re the Senate of Minnesota · Pennington v. Hare · State ex rel. Braley v. Gay · State ex rel. Attorney General v. Southern Minnesota Railroad · Brisbin v. Cleary
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When a voter uniformly uses a mark other than (X) in marking his ballot, clearly indicating his intent to mark against a name, and does not use (X) anywhere else on the ballot his vote shall be counted for each candidate so marked.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sperl v. Wegwerth““* * * Mere irregularities in the marking of ballots, such as neither create uncertainty as to the voter’s choice nor serve as distinguishing signs, violative of secrecy, are not cause for rejecting ballots.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sperl v. Wegwerth“a clear distinction between the provisions and prohibitions in the election laws which are personal to the elector and those which apply to election officials over whose conduct he has no control.”
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.