Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 546 FSUPP 449 - Gartrell v. Knight

Gartrell v. Knight’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
May 2004
most recently cited

2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently May 2004

2 state decisions

20198219902000decided

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 Wolff v. McDonnell · United States v. Classic · Vitek v. Jones · Service v. Dulles · Vitarelli v. Seaton

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

  1. “"Yet, the Democratic Party loyalty oath in force at the time Gartrell ran as a Republican permitted one who had supported another party to run in the subsequent election as a Democrat if `at least one year before the deadline for qualifying to run for nomination in said Primary Election (he) file(s) a written statement of his intention to so qualify with the Chairman of the State Executive Committee. . . .' Rules of the Democratic Party, Rules Changes and Additions Adopted April 21, 1979. This rule, superseded by the Radney Rule of February 14, 1981, required notification to the party at least one year before the deadline for qualifying, but was repealed approximately one year and five months before that deadline. If the 1979 rule had not been repealed, Gartrell could have complied with it and sought office in the 1982 election as a Democrat. Under the Radney Rule, the test for loyalty is not prospective but retrospective and prejudicial."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"`No person shall be permitted to qualify as a candidate for nomination or election to public or party office in said primary elections who did not support the nominees of the Democratic Party in the last general election. "`Any elected public official who attained office as a nominee of the Democratic Party, and any person who is a member of the State Democratic Executive Committee, shall not be permitted to qualify as a candidate for public or party office in said primary elections if, while holding such public or party office, he or she did not support the nominees of the Democratic Party in the last general election.'"”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “A party seeking preliminary injunction need not show with absolute certainty that he will prevail on the merits,”
    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.