Hammond v. Hickel’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently November 2021
11 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 Tebbe v. Smith · Standard Oil Co. v. Johnson · Russell v. McDowell · 4 Wash. 2d 498 - Shelton Hotel Co., Inc. v. Bates · 24 Cal. 2d 645 - People v. Puritan Ice Co.
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A defeated candidate or 10 qualified voters may contest the nomination or election of any person or the approval or rejection of any question or proposition upon one or more of the following grounds: (1) malcon-duct, fraud, or corruption on the part of an election official sufficient to change the result of the election; (2) when the person certified as elected or nominated is not qualified as required by law; (3) any corrupt practice as defined by law sufficient to change the results of the election.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Willis v. Thomas · Thomas v. Croft“The purpose of AS 15.20.150 and of AS 15.20.170 is to provide methods by which to insure that absentee ballots have been cast on or before election day. All absentee ballots in question here were objectively determined to have been cast on or before the election day. The mandatory requirement that ballots be marked on or before election day is satisfied by a date received stamp, or a postmark, or the date of witnessing of the voter certificate, or any combination of these.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Willis v. Thomas“A voter whose name is changed by marriage or court order may vote under the previous name, but if the voter desires to use the new name, he or she shall notify the director not later than 30 days preceding an election so that the registration may be amended to reflect the change.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fischer v. Stout
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.