Duke v. Connell’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently February 2016
3 district · 1 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 Williams v. Rhodes · Anderson v. Celebrezze · Bullock v. Carter · Lubin v. Panish · Hynes v. Mayor and Council of Oradell
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“candidates participating in future elections should be forewarned that they must meet the criteria outlined. Those who fail to do so may be challenged and should ultimately be excluded from the ballot. ANSTEAD, J., dissenting. While I agree with the majority that a major impediment to judicial resolution of this case rests on the lack of a precise definition of the terms”
1 later decision 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.