State v. Carroll’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 4 district · 201 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 223 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"First, without a known appointment or election, but under such circumstances of reputation or acquiescence as were calculated to induce people without inquiry, to submit to, or invoke his action, supposing him to be the officer he assumed to be. "Second, under color of a known and valid appointment or election, but where the officer had failed to conform to some precedent requirement or condition, as to take an oath, give a bond and the like. "Third, under color of a known election or appointment, void, because the officer was not eligible, or because there was a want of power in the electing or appointing body, or by reason of some defect or irregularity in its exercise, such ineligibility, want of power, or defect being unknown to the public. "Fourth, under color of an election or appointment by or-pursuant to a public unconstitutional law, before the same is. adjudged to be such.””

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Norton v. Shelby County · Continental Trust Co. v. Toledo, St. L. & K. C. R.

2. ““The inference to be drawn from these assumptions necessarily is that a manifestly unconstitutional law Is without any force whatever, and that whether manifestly unconstitutional or not, and whether to have the appearance and force of law or not, are questions for the private judgment of the citizen. If these assumptions were true, they would dispose of this case, but they are of novel impression, and fundamentally erroneous. Every law of the legislature, however repugnant to the constitution, has not only the appearance and semblance of authority, but the force of law. It cannot he questioned at the bar of private judgment, and, if thought unconstitutional, resisted, hut must be received and obeyed, as to all intents and purposes law, until questioned In and set aside by the courts. This principle is essential to the very existence of order in society. It has never been questioned by any jurist to my knowledge. It was never questioned even by Mr. Calhoun and his disciples that an unconstitutional law of congress, manifestly and palpably unconstitutional, had the color and semblance of authority, and was obligatory upon the citizens of a stale, as citizens of the United States, until it was nullified by an act of the state legislature, which they claimed might be done on the ground that the general government was the creature of a compact between the states, and its laws might therefore be so nullified by action of the state legislatures. Certainly, they never asserted that ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Speer v. Board of County Com'rs

3. ““ One who actually performs the duties of an office, with apparent right and under claim and color of an appointment or election.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Baggot v. Turner