Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 429 U.S. 1317 - McCarthy v. Briscoe

McCarthy v. Briscoe’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

81
cited by 81 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
July 2020
most recently cited

30 federal appellate · 8 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 81 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2020 · most notably Nken v. Holder (2009), Graddick, Attorney General of Alabama v. Newman Et Al. (1981)

30 federal appellate · 8 district · 9 state decisions

330197619801990200020102020decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1253 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651

Relies on Storer v. Brown · American Party of Texas v. White · Lubin v. Panish · MTM, Inc. v. Baxley

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

  1. “The political party and the independent candidate approaches to political activity are entirely different and neither is a satisfactory substitute for the other. A new party organization contemplates a statewide, ongoing organization with distinctive political character. Its goal is typically to gain control of the machinery of state government by electing its candidates to public office. From the standpoint of a potential supporter, affiliation with the new party would mean giving up his ties with another party or sacrificing his own independent status, even though his possible interest in the new party centers around a particular candidate for a particular office. For the candidate himself, it would mean undertaking the serious responsibilities of qualified party status under California law, such as the conduct of a primary, holding party conventions, and the promulgation of party platforms. But more fundamentally, the candidate, who is by definition an independent and desires to remain one, must now consider himself a party man, surrendering his independent status. Must he necessarily choose the political party route if he wants to appear on the ballot in the general election? We think not. * * * * * * [W]e perceive no sufficient state interest in conditioning ballot position for an independent candidate on his forming a new political party as long as the State is free to assure itself that the candidate is a serious contender, truly independent, and with a satisfactory le”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “a court may properly look to available evidence or to matters subject to judicial notice to determine whether there is reason to assume the requisite community support”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““It is not seriously contested that Senator McCarthy is a nationally known figure; that he served two terms in the United States Senate and five in the United States House of Representatives; that he was an active candidate for the Democratic nomination for President in 1968, winning a substantial percentage of the votes cast in the primary elections; and that he has succeeded this year in qualifying for position on the general election ballot in many States. The defendants have made no showing that support for Senator McCarthy is less substantial in Texas than elsewhere.””
    1 later decision 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.