Files v. Hill’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Board of Election Commissioners has no power to call or hold a new election and for the court to direct it to do so would be to confer a power that does not exist. See McFarlin v. Kelly, supra; McCoy v. Story, 243 Ark. 1 , 417 S.W.2d 954 ; Langston v. Johnson, 255 Ark. 933 , 504 S.W. 2d 349 . Furthermore, it is the function of the legislature, not the courts, to create rights of action, or provide relief where means of redress have not been designated. McFarlin v. Kelly, supra.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Binns v. Heck · Phillips v. Earngey

2. “In Arkansas, equity has no jurisdiction of any case involving the right to vote, or any political right, even where fraud is alleged. Catlett v. Republican Party, 242 Ark. 283 , 413 S.W.2d 651 ; Walls v. Brundidge, 109 Ark. 250 , 160 S.W. 230 , Ann. Cas. 191 SC 980; Hester v. Bourland, 80 Ark. 145 , 95 S.W. 992 ; Hutto v. Rogers, 191 Ark. 787 , 88 S.W.2d 68 ; Rich v. Walker, 237 Ark. 586 , 374 S.W.2d 476 ; Miller v. Tatum, 170 Ark. 152 , 279 S.W. 1002 . There is no allegation, however, in Arnold’s complaint that anyone acted fraudulently. Arnold relies entirely on the assertion that an unknown number of people were deprived of their right to vote for Files as a ground for voiding the election. Nowhere in Arnold’s complaint does he allege that the irregularities enumerated were sufficient to render the outcome of the election really uncertain and such an inference drawn from those allegations would be strained indeed. Assuming that he and his class had standing to bring the suit, his allegations did not state a cause of action. Baker v. Hedrick, 225 Ark. 778 , 285 S.W.2d 910 . In the cited case, we pointed out that it was a serious matter to void an entire election. We also stated that we had held in Patton v. Coates, 41 Ark. 111 , that, in order to do so, the wrong must be clear and flagrant, diffusive in its influences, calculated to effect more than can be traced and sufficiently potent to render the result clearly uncertain. Otherwise, the court cannot safely proceed beyon”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Whitley v. Cranford

3. ““A. Instructions concerning write-in votes were not sufficiently clear. “B. Pencils were not furnished for the convenience of voters. “C. Voting machines did not function properly and it was impossible for many voters to cast a write-in vote for plaintiff Piles. “D. Voters were instructed that long lines waiting at the polls were caused by write-in voters and that electors could vote more quickly by using machines that were not functioning to accept write-in votes. “E. Instructions for voting for write-in candidate Piles were given by election officials, resulting in ballots not being counted although the instructions were followed. “F. Electors, attempting to vote for plaintiff Piles and following instructions of election officials, wrote plaintiff’s name on masking tape, and on parts of the voting machine in an effort to cast votes for plaintiff Piles, with the result that said votes were not counted. “G. In some instances it Was physically impossible for a voter to cast his ballot for plaintiff Piles on a voting machine.” Files, supra, 594 S.W.2d at 838 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 100 Wis. 2d 490 - McNally v. Tollander