Scott v. McCuen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “State Wide Petitions Initiative — The first power reserved by the people is the initiative. Eight per cent of the legal voters may propose any law and ten per cent may propose a Constitutional Amendment by initiative petition, and every such petition shall include the text of the measure so proposed. Initiative petitions for State-wide measures shall be filed with the Secretary of Statenot less than four months before the election at which they are to be voted upon . . . * * * * The Petition Title — At the time of filing petitions the exact title to be used on the ballot shall by the petitioner be submitted with the petition and on State-wide measures, shall be submitted to the State Board of Election Commissioners, who shall certify such tide to the Secretary of State, to be placed upon the ballot . . . * * * Verification —• Only legal votes shall be counted upon petitions. Petitions may be circulated and presented in parts, but each part of any petition shall have attached thereto, the affidavit of the persons circulating the same, that all signatures thereon were made in the presence of the affiant, and that to the best of the affiant’s knowledge and behef each signature is genuine, and that the person signing is a legal voter ... * = * Sufficiency — The sufficiency of all State-wide petitions shall be decided in the first instance by the Secretary of State, subject to review by the Supreme Court of the State, which shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all s”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stilley v. Priest

2. “The argument for an early decision, primarily to savé the sponsors’ time and money has another side. Should we devote the time, effort and financial resources of this court and the parties to decide an issue that may never be presented to the voters? What if the Secretary of State refuses to cooperate with a sponsor? Would we alter Amendment 7 and order him to do something clearly not required? Would a premature decision by us be binding for four, six or eight years? . . . Our existing procedure does have a distinct advantage: it keeps us all honest. Sponsors know it is to their advantage to present an honest title so it will not be stricken at the last minute and we know that we are not rendering merely an advisory opinion which may become moot. We know our decision counts and we will be accountable for it. Any other course would discourage both honesty and responsibility; sponsors would be inclined to offer a misleading ballot title that might pass unnoticed and we would be deciding the case in the abstract [ 289 Ark. at 45 , 709 S.W.2d at 79 .]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Finn v. McCuen

3. “Our jurisdiction attaches only after the petition is declared sufficient and that determination must be of the sufficiency of both the title and the signatures.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stilley v. Priest