Hill v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
2017
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 157 (§ 7 of the National Labor Relations Act)
Relies on Missouri Soybean Ass'n v. Missouri Clean Water Commission · Goerlitz v. City of Maryville · Missourians to Protect the Initiative Process v. Blunt · Mo. Nat. Educ. v. Mo. State Bd. of Educ. · Buchanan v. Kirkpatrick
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hile ... sometimes it is necessary for ... the summary statement to provide a context reference for the initiative petition, we do not find that failure to do so, where the consequences are potentially ever changing due to the political landscape , will always render the summary insufficient.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Stickler v. Ashcroft“"even if the language proposed by [the opponents] is more specific, and even if that level of specificity might be preferable, whether the summary statement prepared by the Secretary of State is the best language for describing the referendum is not the test."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Stickler v. Ashcroft“state. In November 2016, prior to his submission of the referendum petition, Louis submitted ten initiative petitions to the Secretary of State, each seeking to amend Article I, Section 29 of the Missouri Constitution to prohibit the State from enacting”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Stickler v. Ashcroft
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.