Plante v. Smathers’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently February 2015
16 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 Buckley v. Valeo · Kenneth A. Plante v. Larry Gonzalez, Etc., Jon C. Thomas v. Larry Gonzalez, Etc. · Amos v. Mathews · 333 So. 2d 457 - Alsdorf v. Broward County · 125 So. 2d 846 - Gray v. Bryant
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“from historical precedent, from the present facts, from common sense, and from an examination of the purpose the provision was intended to accomplish and the evils sought to be prevented. Furthermore, we may look to the explanatory materials available to the people as a predicate for their decision as persuasive of their intent.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A]n interpretation of a constitutional provision which will lead to an absurd result will not be adopted when the provision is fairly subject to another construction which will accomplish the manifest intent and purpose of the people.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A public office is a public trust. The people shall have the right to secure and sustain that trust against abuse. To assure this right: (a) All elected constitutional officers and candidates for such offices and, as may be determined by law, other public officers, candidates, and employees shall file full and public disclosure of their financial interests. [[Image here]] (h) This section shall not be construed to limit disclosures and prohibitions which may be established by law to preserve the public trust and avoid conflicts between public duties and private interests. (i) Schedule — On the effective date of this amendment and until changed by law: (1) Full and public disclosure of financial interests shall mean filing with the custodian of state records by July 1 of each year a sworn statement showing net worth and identifying each asset and liability in excess of $1,000 and its value together with one of the following: a. A copy of the person’s most recent federal income tax return; or b. A sworn statement which identifies each separate source and amount of income which exceeds $1,000. The forms for such source disclosure and the rules under which they are to be filed shall be prescribed by the independent commission established in subsection (f), and such rules shall include disclosure of secondary sources of income.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Apthorp v. Detzner
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.