Farley v. Healey’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 139 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 148 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably 18 Cal. 3d 582 - Associated Home Builders of Greater Eastbay, Inc. v. City of Livermore (1976), 17 Cal. 3d 129 - Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley (1976)
9 federal appellate · 139 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 53 Cal. 2d 370 - People v. Banks · 54 Cal. 2d 339 - Peterson v. Lamb Rubber Co. · 32 Cal. 2d 330 - McFadden v. Jordan · Perry v. Jordan · Blotter v. Farrell
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 148 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[U]nder section 180 of the Charter of the City and County of San Francisco, his [registrar of voters] duty is limited to the ministerial function of ascertaining whether the procedural requirements for submitting an initiative measure have been met. It is not his function to determine whether a proposed initiative will be valid if enacted or whether a proposed declaration of policy is one to which the initiative may apply. These questions may involve difficult legal issues that only a court can determine. The right to propose initiative measures cannot properly be impeded by a decision of a ministerial officer, even if supported by the advice of the city attorney, that the subject is not appropriate for submission to the voters. Given compliance with the formal requirements for submitting an initiative, the registrar must place it on the ballot unless he is directed to do otherwise by a court on a compelling showing that a proper case has been established for interfering with the initiative power. [ 431 P. 2d at 651-652 ; citations omitted; emphasis supplied]”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“this refusal-improper as it is-may be retroactively validated by a judicial declaration that the measure should not be submitted to the voters.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.