Jones v. MacDonald’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently March 2010 · most notably Reilly v. Ozzard (1960), Ahto v. Weaver (1963)
35 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 County of Bergen v. Port of New York Authority · DeFeo v. Smith · State ex rel. Clawson v. Thompson · Meyers v. Mayor and Council of Borough of East Paterson · 37 N.J. Super. 122 - Meyers v. Mayor, Etc., Borough of East Paterson
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“". . . Public policy demands that an officeholder discharge his duties with undivided loyalty. The doctrine of incompatibility is *Page 458 intended to assure performance of that quality. Its applicability does not turn upon the integrity of the person concerned or his individual capacity to achieve impartiality . . . The doctrine applies inexorably if the offices come within it, no matter how worthy the officer's purpose or extraordinary his talent. . . . this common-law rule is sometimes buttressed and sometimes qualified by statutory provision. They should be construed together so far as possible. . . . At common law, offices were not incompatible unless the functions were inconsistent. . . . While incompatibility has been described as physical impossibility to perform the duties of both offices, it is not simply a physical impossibility to discharge the duties of both offices at the same time, it is an inconsistency in the functions of the two offices, as where one is subordinate to the other, or where a contrariety and antagonism would result in the attempt by one person to discharge faithfully and impartially the duties of both. Two offices are said to be incompatible when the holder cannot in every instance discharge the duties of each. Incompatibility arises, therefore, from the nature of the duties of the offices, when there is an inconsistency in the functions of the two, where the functions of the two are inherently inconsistent or repugnant, as where antagonism wo”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"... ‘Where there is no express (constitutional or statutory) provision, the true test is, whether the two offices are incompatible in their natures, in the rights, duties, or obligations connected with or flowing out of them. Offices, says Bacon, are incompatible or inconsistent, when they cannot be executed by the same person; or when they cannot be executed with care, and ability; or where one is subordinate to or interferes with another.” Bac. Abr. Tit. “Office” K.’ "”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is no answer to say that the conflict in duties outlined above may never in fact arise. It is enough that it may in the regular operation of the statutory plan. If the duties are such that placed in one person they might disserve the public interests, or if the respective offices might or will conflict even on rare occasions,, it is sufficient to declare them legally incompatible.” McDonough, 35 N.J. at 157, 171 A.2d 307 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.