Glazer v. Commission on Ethics’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"No public servant ... shall participate in a transaction involving the governmental entity in which to his actual knowledge any of the following persons has a substantial interest: * * * * * * "(2) Any person of which he has a substantial economic interest of which he may reasonably be expected to know. "(3) Any person of which he is an officer, director, trustee, partner or employee. "(4) Any person with whom he is negotiating or has an arrangement concerning prospective employment."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hill v. Commission on Ethics for Public Employees · 484 So. 2d 912 - In Re Beychok

2. ““Equal protection requirements are fulfilled if there is a rational basis for using the classification method so as to attain a legitimate state interest, (citations omitted) “Because appointed members of boards are generally charged with formulating policy and participating in fundamental decision-making proceedings, there is a rational relationship to the state interest of avoiding conflicts of interest without creating unnecessary barriers to public service, as provided in the Code, (citation omitted) There is a legitimate reason for making a distinction. We find no constitutional infirmity.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hill v. Commission on Ethics for Public Employees · 484 So. 2d 912 - In Re Beychok

3. “It is essential to the proper operation of democratic government that elected officials and public employees be independent and impartial; that governmental decisions and policy be made in the proper channel of the governmental structure; that public office and employment not be used for private gain other than the remuneration provided by law; and that there by public confidence in the integrity of government. The attainment of one or more of these ends is impaired when a conflict exists between the private interests of an elected official or a public employee and his duties as such. The public interest, therefore, requires that the law protect against such conflicts of interest and that it establish appropriate ethical standards with respect to the conduct of elected officials and public employees without creating unnecessary barriers to public service.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 484 So. 2d 912 - In Re Beychok