Taylor v. Bleakley’s Empirical Analysis
1895
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently November 1989
1 federal appellate · 15 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 Kirk v. Rhoads · Blair v. Ridgely · Curran v. Clayton · Fields v. Osborne
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is insisted that the provision is directory only, and that, if the purpose of the voter can be ascertained with reasonable certainty from the ballot cast by him, effect should be given to it. Unquestionably, prior to the passage of chapter 78 by the legislature of 1893, the rule that the intent of the voter, as evidenced by his ballot, is controlling in the count thereof was by a long course of judicial determination firmly imbedded in the jurisprudence of this state. . . . The enactment of that statute was designed to inaugurate an important departure from the mode of voting and counting votes which had existed in this state prior to its passage. If the legislature intended to say that a ballot which had failed to accord with certain specifically enumerated requirements on the part of the voter could not be counted, the purpose of the legislature, irrespective of all considerations as to the intent or effect -of such failure, if not unconstitutional, cannot be disregarded by courts. If the statute is harsh in its terms the remedy is with the legislature. . . . “A ballot ought to be cast by the voter intelligently and thoughtfully. If so cast, there is no trouble in complying with the provisions of chapter 78. If a person is illiterate or physically disabled he may have assistants to mark his ballot. No one is disfranchised by the act, nor are the provisions concerning the marking of the ballot difficult to understand.” (Taylor v. Bleakley, 55 Kan. 1, 8, 9, 14, 39 Pac. 10”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wall v. Pierpont
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.