Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 428 N.E.2d 1212 - Wright v. Gettinger

Wright v. Gettinger’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
3
states following
January 2018
most recently cited

31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably 138 Ill. 2d 21 - Pullen v. Mulligan (1990), 156 Ill. 2d 288 - McDunn v. Williams (1993)

31 state decisions

1001981199020002010decided

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 Parvin v. Wimberg · Brown v. Grzeskowiak · Medias v. City of Indianapolis · Thomas v. Woollen · Conley v. Hile

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

  1. “can be rationalized to give effect to both,”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. In Re Adoption of BW · W.G. v. D.B.
  2. “The system of using clerk's initials can, however, provide the knowledge that only initialed official bal lots are counted. There is no other way to distinguish an official ballot from a fraudulent one at this point.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. Schoffstall v. Kaperak · Fultz v. Newkirk
  3. “And in the canvass of the votes any member of the election board may protest as to the counting of any ballot, or any part thereof, and any ballot which is not indorsed with the initial of the clerks, as provided for in this article, and any ballot which shall bear any distinguishing mark or mutilation shall be void, and shall not be counted, and any ballot, or part of a ballot, from which it is impossible to determine the elector's choice of candidates, shall not be counted as to the candidate, or candidates, affected thereby. (Emphasis added.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. Fultz v. Newkirk

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.