Sears v. Bayoud’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently August 2023
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin))
Relationships
Relies on Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals · Stanford v. Butler · Love v. Wilcox · Cramer v. Sheppard · Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby
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.
“court of appeals may issue a writ of mandamus to compel the performance of any duty imposed by law in connection with the holding of an election ..., regardless of whether the person responsible for performing the duty is a public officer.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“§ 141.032. REVIEW OF APPLICATION; NOTICE TO CANDIDATE. (a) On the filing of an application for a place on the ballot, the authority with whom the application is filed shall review the application to determine whether it complies with the requirements as to form, content, and procedure that it must satisfy for the candidate’s name to be placed on the ballot. (b) Except as provided by Subsection (c), the review shall be completed not later than the fifth day after the date the application is received by the authority. (c) If an application is accompanied by a petition, the petition is considered part of the application, and the review shall be completed as soon as practicable after the date the application is received by the authority. However, the petition is not considered part of the application for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements applicable to each document, and a deficiency in the requirements for one document may not be remedied by the contents of the other document. (d) A determination under this section that an application complies with the applicable requirements does not preclude a subsequent determination that the application does not comply, subject to Section 141.034. (e) If an application does not comply with the applicable requirements, the authority shall reject the application and immediately deliver to the candidate written notice of the reason for the rejection. (f) This section does not apply to a determination of a candidate’s eligi”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Francis“The performance of a duty placed by this code on an officer of a political party is enforceable by writ of mandamus in the same manner as if the party officer were a public officer.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Gibson
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.