396 N.J. Super. 405 - McKenzie v. Corzine’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “whether advocates on one side of the issue might prefer that the Act's description be phrased differently to better enhance their political position. In short, we may intervene in such a circumstance only when the interpretive statement is so unclear as to preclude the voters' understanding of the true purpose of the question or so substantially unbalanced as to be biased. [ McKenzie v. Corzine , 396 N.J. Super. 405 , 418-19, 934 A.2d 651 (App. Div. 2007).]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 455 N.J. Super. 316 - Desanctis v. Borough of Belmar

2. “Rare is the case where the inadequacy of the interpretive statement will justify the risk of judicial intervention. That risk inheres not simply in the proposal of an alternative but as well in the mere enjoining of the use of the proposed statement. Either can readily be perceived by one side or the other as both prejudicial to their cause and partial to that of their adversary. [ Id. at 39, 438 A.2d 519 .]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 455 N.J. Super. 316 - Desanctis v. Borough of Belmar

3. “the brief statement is to be added to help the voter understand more about the amendment than the public question tells him, for the purpose of aiding him in his decision.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 455 N.J. Super. 316 - Desanctis v. Borough of Belmar