Ogg v. Glover’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In this recanvass, wherever the voter has apparently attempted in good faith to comply with the statute by making simple cross marks in the proper squares, effect has been given to his intention as so expressed, even although some departure from symmetry and regularity is shown; for instance, where a pencil mark is made double for a part of its length, or for all of it, in an evident attempt to make it plainer, or where accidental hooks or curves appear at the ends of the lines caused by carelessness in removing the pencil. Irregularities of this character, being incapable of accurate description, and not being adapted to use as a means for the subsequent identification of the ballot, are not considered destructive of the voter’s purpose. “Ballots have been rejected for the following causes: ... (2) The placing in any square of a cross one of the arms of which is distinctly and purposely paralleled by a third line, forming such a figure as this: 1^5 (Wheeler v. Caldwell, 68 Kan. 776 , 75 Pac. 1031 .) (3) The placing in any square or circle of a distinct third line in addition to the two forming the cross, although not parallel to either, forming such a figure as this: . . . . (p- 260.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wall v. Pierpont

2. ““The courts of England and Australia have given a very technical construction to statutes of this character. The supreme court of Montana originally followed their lead in this respect, upon the principle that in adopting a foreign statute the legislature was to be deemed to have adopted also the interpretation already given it by the courts of the country from which it was boi'rowed. (Price v. Lush, 10 Mont. 61 , 24 Pac. 749 , 9 L. R. A. 467.) Later, however, yielding to the argument that restrictions upon the electoral franchise should be employed with more caution in this country than under other forms of government, the court disapproved this case, and after a very thorough review of the American decisions reached the conclusion that an election otherwise legally and fairly conducted was not to be invalidated by reason of an irregularity in the preparation of the ballot. (Stackpole v. Hallahan, 16 Mont. 40 , 40 Pac. 80 , 28 L. R. A. 502.) This is unquestionably in accordance with the great weight of authority in the United States.” (Ogg v. Glover, 72 Kan. 247, 256 , 83 Pac. 1039 .)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wall v. Pierpont