Kling v. De Armand’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

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

1. ““The proof that the statute requires before any such recount may be obtained is satisfactory evidence that the box or the contents thereof have not been tampered with or disturbed after its closing by the commissioners, whereas under the general rule which prevailed prior thereto the proof required was evidence which would prove with reasonable certainty that they had not been tampered with since the election. We do not think there is any material difference between the degree of proof required by the statute and that required by the general rule recognized before its enactment. We do think that proof should be made that there has been no reasonable opportunity for the box or its contents to have been tampered with in order to comply with the statutory requirement of satisfactory evidence.” (Italics added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Constantin v. McNeely

2. ““ * * * It suffices for destroying the character of these ballots as evidence that full opportunity was afforded for their being changed, so that the court cannot, in the nature of things, have legal assurance of their not having been changed.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Constantin v. McNeely