Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 377 SW2D 618 - Lee v. Daniels

Lee v. Daniels’s Empirical Analysis

1964

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
September 1992
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1992

7 state decisions

301964197019801990decided

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 Purcell v. Lindsey · State ex rel. Childs v. Sutton · Howsley & Jacobs v. Kendall · Baskin v. State Ex Rel. Short · Kirk v. Gordon

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

  1. “[I]f any of the officers named herein shall announce their candidacy, or shall in fact become a candidate, in any General, Special or Primary Election, for any office of profit or trust under the laws of this State or the United States other than the office then held, at any time when the unexpired term of the office then held shall exceed one (1) year, such announcement or such candidacy shall constitute an automatic resignation of the office then held.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “As Justice Steakley pointed out in Lee , I am unable to see how ineligibility pertaining to offices in the general class to which Section 19 applies, i.e., holders of lucrative offices, can exist in the absence of an actual holding of the office. The sine qua non of ineligibility pertaining to this class is the holding of the office. If a person is not holding a lucrative office at the time in question, how can Section 19 apply?”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “No judge of any court, Secretary of State, Attorney General, clerk of any court of record, or any person holding a lucrative office under the United States, or this State, or any foreign government shall during the term for which he is elected or appointed, be eligible to the Legislature.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.