In re Coy’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 district ·

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

1. ““United States of AmeRioa, Disteict of Indiana — ss.: “In the District Court of the United, States for the District of Indiana. “May Term, 1887, at Indianapolis. “The grand jurors of the Uidted States within and for the District of Indiana, impaneled, sworn, and charged in said court, at the term aforesaid, to inquire for the United States, within and for the district of Indiana aforesaid, upon their oath present that Samuel E. Perkins, Simeon Coy, Henry Spaan, John H. Councilman, Charles N. Metcalf, John E. Sullivan, Albert T. Beck, George W. Budd, Stephen Matter, William E. A. Bemhamer, and John L. Reardon, late of said district, at the district aforesaid, on the fourth day of November, in the year of our Lord 1886, unlawfully, knowingly, and felon-iously did then and” there conspire, confederate, combine, and agree together, between and among themselves, to commit an offense against the United States, and did then and there unlawfully, knowingly, and feloniously then and there conspire, combine, confederate, and agree together, between and among themselves, to induce, aid, counsel, procure, and advise one Allen IJisey to unlawfully neglect, and omit to perform, a duty required and imposed by the laws of the state of Indiana, relating to and affecting a certain election had and held at and in the county of Marion, in the state and district of Indiana, and at tho Second precinct of tho Thirteenth ward of the city of Indianapolis, in the county of Marion aforesaid, on the sec”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Coy

2. ““In those views I do not concur. It was conceded in argument, and it may be inferred from the statutes, that the certificate in question was, in fact, one paper, in that it stated the result of the election as to each candidate. So, also, as to the copy of the tally-paper and poll-list placed in the hands of the inspector. They were none the less documents in regard to an election for representative in congress because they also showed the number of votes cast at the same polls for state officers. * * * If mutilated or changed before they reached the board, [of canvassers,] their value as legal evidence in regard to the election both for state and national officers might be impaired or destroyed. If skillfully altered by bad men, the will of the people, as expressed at the polls, might be defeated. Common prudence, therefore, suggested the necessity of guarding against every possibility of such mutilation or alteration. ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Van Buren v. United States