Headley v. Ostroot’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently September 2018
23 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 State ex rel. Richards v. Whisman · Morford v. Pyle · Hodges v. Snyder · O'Brien v. Pyle · State Ex Rel. Jensen v. Wells
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]his court has held, and the holding has been reaffirmed that the requirements of SDC 55.0402 [SDCL 2-1-3] are substantial in character and not merely requirements of form. State ex rel. Jensen v. Wells, 66 S.D. 236 , 281 N.W. 99 ; Shields v. Wells, 65 S.D. 552 , 276 N.W. 246 ; Morford v. Pyle, 53 S.D. 356 , 220 N.W. 907 ; O’Brien v. Pyle, 51 S.D. 385 , 214 N.W. 623 . Implicit in the holding that these statutory requirements are “substantial in character” is the thought that they are important and essential elements of the law giving effect to the constitutional provision relating to the initiative and referendum. Considered in their entirety these requirements are to prevent fraud or corruption in securing the petitions. Morford v. Pyle, supra. * * * * * * Whether the requirement that a signer of a referendum petition must add his residence in addition to his post office address is a reasonable requirement is to be determined by the legislature in the first instance. The function of the court is only to determine whether this requirement bears any real relation to the duty imposed upon the legislature to give effect to the constitutional provision, or whether the requirement is a palpable invasion of the right to refer a law to the people. In case of doubt, the court should give effect to the will of the legislature. State ex rel. Richards v. Whisman, 36 S.D. 260 , 154 N.W. 707 , L.R.A. 1917B, 1 ; Hodges v. Snyder, 43 S.D. 166 , 178 N.W. 575 ; Culhane v. Equitable Life Ass”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Nist v. Herseth · Thompson v. Lynde
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.