Jones v. Hare’s Empirical Analysis
440 F.2d 685 · 1971
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently February 1991
5 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
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 Williams v. Rhodes · Turner v. Fouche · Thomas W. Jones, Etc. v. Edgar M. Branigin
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We find that each of these requirements is a reasonable attempt by the State of Michigan to provide ready access to its official ballot to any person who has-the support of a minimally significant number of qualified voters. We further find that the procedures utilized by Michigan are drawn to reasonably insure the effectuation of its legitimate regulation of an open election, and that such procedures do not impose any inherently discriminatory conditions upon access to the ballot nor do they place an unreasonably heavy burden on those persons who seek to represent minor ‘political parties.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McCarthy v. Austin
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.