Richardson v. Caputo’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently March 2017
19 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 United Hunters Assn. of NJ, Inc. v. Adams · 46 N.J. Super. 550 - Perry v. Giuliano · 85 N.J. Super. 80 - Axtell v. Caputo · Matter of Gilfillan v. Beyer · Gilfillan v. Commissioners of Election
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Political party” is defined to mean “a party which, at the election held for all of the members of the General Assembly next preceding the holding of any primary election ... polled for members of the General Assembly at least ten per centum (10%) of the total vote cast in the State.” N.J.S.A. 19:1-1. A party which attains that status is entitled to a primary election, N.J.S.A 19:2-1, and such a political party is accorded a party column on the ballot for the general election unless the party shall have failed at its primary to poll the percentage we have just mentioned, in which event that party’s nominees selected at the primary shall appear on the general election ballot in “the column or columns designated ‘Nomination by Petition.’ ” N.J.S.A. 19:5-1. [Richardson v. Caputo, 46 N.J. 3, 10 , [ 214 A.2d 385 ] (1965).]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“would have no difficulty in finding all of them by simply running down the column, the voting machine ballot is not designed to permit such ease in voting. Rather one might have to follow a number of lines or columns to search out the candidates of his party, and this could be a considerable feat for a voter in the booth conscious of a queue on the other side of the curtain. [ 46 N.J. at 12-13 ]. Our comments in Richardson with reference to”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Quaremba v. Allan“we can find no reason, and no one suggests a reason, to deny [candidates] the benefit of their joint candidacy or to deny a voter who wants to advance the party or the principles of the candidates an easy opportunity to find all of them.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.