Wolfson v. Concannon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[S]tricter restrictions during judicial campaigns on nonjudicial endorsement and campaigning for sitting judges than for nonincumbent candidates for judicial positions would create the disparity, not level it. ... The inequity of allowing some candidates for judicial office but not others those opportunities ... seem sufficiently compelling to justify parallel restrictions for sitting judges and nonjudges, when both are running for the same judicial office.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Platt v. Bd. of Comm'rs on Grievances & Discipline of the Ohio Supreme Court

2. “When a judicial candidate actively engages in political campaigns, a judge's impartiality can be put into question, and the public can lose faith in the judiciary's ability to abide by the law and not make decisions along political lines.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Platt v. Bd. of Comm'rs on Grievances & Discipline of the Ohio Supreme Court

3. “[m]aintaining public trust in the judiciary as an institution driven by legal principles rather than political concerns is a structural imperative. The rule of law depends upon it.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Hodes & Nauser, MDs v. Stanek