65 Ill. 2d 516 - Lunding v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably 84 Ill. 2d 42 - Scott v. Department of Commerce & Community Affairs (1981), State ex rel. New Mexico Judicial Standards Commission v. Espinosa (2003)
19 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 41 (§ 1 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914)
Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Goldberg v. Kelly · Perry v. Sindermann · Fuentes v. Shevin · Goss v. Lopez
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is plain that the legislators intended, and the public interest demands, that Board members not be amenable to political influence or discipline in the discharge of their official duties. To subject a neutral, bipartisan, and independent board to the unbridled whim of the Governor under the Wilcox rule would destroy its purpose and its efficacy. As the Supreme Court made clear in Humphrey’s Executor, ‘it is quite evident that one who holds his office only during the pleasure of another cannot be depended upon to maintain an attitude of independence against the latter’s will.’ ( 295 U.S. 602 , 629, 79 L. Ed. 1611, 1620 , 55 S. Ct. 869 .) If the holding of this court in Wilcox were extended and applied to the removal of the members of the State Board of Elections, the political independence of that body envisioned by the delegates to the constitutional convention and sought to be achieved by the legislature would be jeopardized. We therefore hold that the Governor can only-remove a member of the State Board of Elections for cause.” 65 Ill. 2d 516, 527 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Governor may remove for incompetence, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office any officer who may be appointed by the Governor.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[n]o political party shall have a majority of members of the Board.”
2 later decisions 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.