People v. Cunningham’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate ·

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

1. “This is a variation of the argument first advanced in the leading case of People v. Willett, [ 213 N.Y. 368 , 107 N.E. 707 (N.Y.1915),] where it was rejected by the Court of Appeals as applied to a nomination in a judicial convention. Undoubtedly the power of any individual, however influential, to deliver a nomination in a contested primary is significantly less than the power that might be exercised at a judicial convention. Indeed the recent political history of Bronx County refutes the notion that even- Mr. Cunningham had the unqualified power to “cause” such a nomination. The language of the section is in fact not well suited to a primary election and the attack made upon its application is a substantial one. However, to accept the interpretation urged by the defendants would leave so wide a gap in the intended statutory protection against corrupt practices in nominations for ■ public office that it could be adopted only if there were no reasonable alternative. Recognizing the inaptness of the language of the section to the situation presented, I nonetheless believe that the principle of the Willet case may be applied reasonably to primary elections.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Smith

2. “This construction is confirmed by the wording of Section 200.45 of the Penal Law, passed in 1965 as part of a comprehensive, carefully studied revision of the penal statutes, which undertook quite purposefully to deal with precisely the same area of activity covered by Section hh8(3) of the Election Law.... It is true that the Practice Commentary noted the continuing existence of Section 448 of the Election Law. However, it is not easy to accept that the authors of the Penal Law undertook deliberately to cover exactly the area of activity dealt with by Section W(8), using very similar language except more contemporary in phrasing, with the understanding that significantly different consequences might follow from the application of the two sections.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Smith

3. “Any person who ... [mjakes, tenders or offers to procure, or cause any nomination or appointment for any public office or place, or accepts or requests any such nomination or appointment, upon the payment or contribution of any valuable consideration, or upon an understanding or promise thereof ... [i]s guilty of a felony.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Smith