Hadnott v. Amos’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 federal appellate · 6 district · 14 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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We conclude that the State of Alabama has [a] compelling state interest in imposing a substantial pre-election residence requirement for circuit judges. [[Image here]] [[Image here]] “The State of Alabama has a compelling state interest in exposing to the voters for a substantial period of time before election the person who will be a candidate for state circuit judge. The circuit court is the basic court of the state judicial system, the keystone of the structure. ... [[Image here]] “We consider it to be of urgent importance that the voter have an opportunity to observe, learn about and appraise those who seek to be candidates for a key judicial office that touches important events and relationships of their lives and of the community in which they live. There are innumerable qualities and qualifications that are relevant. [[Image here]] “The catalog could be endless. The democratic process contemplates that the voters shall make a choice. In the case of this important judicial office the state has a compelling interest in attempting to see that the voters have the opportunity that their choice be an in formed one. Assertion of the state interest will bring imperfect results. Less than all voters will observe, learn and rationally choose, but this is not to deny to the state its interest in extending the opportunity.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Draper v. Phelps · Hatcher v. Bell

2. “Participation in the political process and freedom to move from place to place are overriding considerations in the case of the voter. His qualifications are minimal, and he need subject himself to the scrutiny of no one in the performance of his role in selection of public officers. Except in extraordinary cases the percentage of non-durational voters predict-, ably is small. Democracy is flexible enough to stand the strain. The candidate is one of a much narrower group, in this case one of two persons. He must have the special capacities that will enable him to perform the office he seeks, and has possession of those capacities need to be exposed to those who will make the choice. Nonexposure of the narrower group — the candidates — with voters choosing from lack of knowledge, is a much more serious strain on the sinews of democracy.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 173 W. Va. 526 - White v. Manchin · Draper v. Phelps

3. ““For election law purposes ‘resident’ means a domiciliary. * * * Concepts of domicile apply alike in the law of elections, of divorce, and of the administration of estates. * * * ” “Acquiring a domicile entails the happening of two concurrent conditions: (1) the act of changing residence and (2) the intent to reside either permanently or for an indefinite time in the future at the new residence. . .. The act of changing residence and the intent to reside either permanently or indefinitely at the new residence coalesce to form an important element that is present when a new domicile is required — there must be a present intention to abandon permanently or indefinitely the former domicile. Temporary absence from one’s residence without the intent to abandon completely the former domicile will not create a new domicile... . “A man has only one domicile.. . [Citations omitted] 320 F. Supp. at 114 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Reeder v. Board of Supervisors of Elections