Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 61 UTAH 213 - Hill v. Moss

Hill v. Moss’s Empirical Analysis

1922

Citation profile

1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
January 1947
most recently cited

1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on People ex rel. Fuller v. Hilliard · Brown v. Bragunier · Territory of Arizona ex rel. Sherman v. Board of Supervisors · Smith v. Lawrence · State ex rel. Clark v. Smith

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.

  1. ““It is also urged by defendants that Comp. Laws Utah, 1917, c. 16, relating to election contests, afford plaintiff an adequate remedy, and that therefore a peremptory writ of mandate should not issue. “The application in this case is for a writ of mandate compelling defendants to issue a certificate of election to the plaintiff. It is not a proceeding to have him' declared entitled to the office. If it were the latter, defendants’ contention would be sound and, in all probability, unanswerable. But a demand for a certificate of election by a person having the highest number of votes on the face of the returns, and a demand to be declared entitled to an office irrespective of the returns, present questions entirely different and demand different remedies for their determination. It cannot, therefore, be assumed that one form of action is a complete and adequate remedy for the other. If plaintiff, on the face of the returns, was clearly entitled to be declared elected under the law regulating the duties of a canvassing board, then it was the duty of the board to declare him elected, and, likewise, the duty of the clerk to issue him a certificate. This would at least be prima facie evidence of his right to the office, and, if subsequent proceedings were had involving actual title to the office, he would be placed in the position of contestee instead of contestant with whatever advantages that might result from questions relating to the burden of proof. In view of these considera”
    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.