5 Cal. 4th 266 - Gooch v. Hendrix’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
84 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably 58 Cal. App. 4th 721 - Department of Social Services v. Superior Court of Siskiyou County (1997), 25 Cal. 4th 165 - Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre (2001)
84 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 43 Cal. 3d 1002 - People v. Woodhead · 42 Cal. 3d 891 - People v. Overstreet · 16 Cal. 3d 30 - People Ex Rel. Younger v. Superior Court · 3 Cal. 3d 118 - Canales v. City of Alviso · Simpson v. City of Los Angeles
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“' [Citations.] ... [¶] Of competing importance, however, is the principle that, `preservation of the integrity of the election process is far more important in the long run than the resolution of any one particular election.' [Citation.] To this end, we have observed that, `The policy in favor of upholding elections appears in the cases in conjunction with the rule that”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““(a) That the precinct board or any member thereof was guilty of malconduct. “(b) That the person who has been declared elected to an office was not, at the time of the election, eligible to that office. “(c) That the defendant has given to any elector or member of a precinct board any bribe or reward, or has offered any bribe or reward for the purpose of procuring his election, or has committed any other offense against the elective franchise defined in Division 18 (commencing with Section 18000). “(d) That illegal votes were cast. “(e) That the precinct board in conducting the election or in canvassing the returns, made errors sufficient to change the result of the election as to any person who has been declared elected. ' “(f) That there was an error in the vote-counting programs or summation of ballot counts.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“An election shall not be set aside on account of illegal votes, unless it appears that a number of illegal votes has been given to the person whose right to the office is contested or who has been certified as having tied for first place, which, if taken from him, would reduce the number of his legal votes below the number of votes given to some other person for the same office, after deducting therefrom the illegal votes which may be shown to have been given to that other person.”
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.