908 So. 2d 204 - Bell v. Eagerton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"[B]ecause Bell did not seek and obtain an injunction to stop the November 7, 2000, election for Lowndes County district court judge, and because Bell did not contest the election of Terri Bozeman to that office, this Court cannot nullify her election or order a new election. § 17-15-6, § 17-15-22, § 17-15-27, § 17-15-32, City of Talladega [v. Pettus, 602 So.2d 357 (Ala.1992)], and City of Adamsville, supra . Accordingly, Bell's appeal is moot and must be dismissed. Kirby [v. City of Anniston, 720 So.2d 887, 889 (Ala.1998)], supra. "”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 990 So. 2d 314 - Wood v. Booth · 988 So. 2d 969 - King v. Campbell

2. “"[T]his Court identified an exception to § 17-15-6 in City of Adamsville [v. City of Birmingham , 495 So.2d 642 (Ala. 1986)]: "`This Court has held that these provisions [in § 17-15-6 ], which formerly appeared in the 1940 Code as Tit. 17, § 235, do not prevent the enjoining of an election. Dennis v. Prather , 212 Ala. 449 , 103 So. 59 (1925). See also Birmingham Gas Co. v. City of Bessemer , 250 Ala. 137 , 33 So.2d 475 (1947).'"”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Roper v. Rhodes · 990 So. 2d 314 - Wood v. Booth

3. “"`A court does not have the jurisdiction to interfere in an election result, unless a statute authorizes it to do so. Ala.Code 1975, § 17-15-6, divests courts of such jurisdiction.... "`".... "... However, this Court identified an exception to § 17-15-6 in City of Adamsville [v. City of Birmingham, 495 So.2d 642 (Ala.1986)]: "`This Court has held that these provisions [in § 17-15-6], which formerly appeared in the 1940 Code as Tit. 17, § 235, do not prevent the enjoining of an election. [11] Dennis v. Prather, 212 Ala. 449 , 103 So. 59 (1925). See also Birmingham Gas Co. v. City of Bessemer, 250 Ala. 137 , 33 So.2d 475 (1947). "`Furthermore, "`"In Dennis v. Prather, 212 Ala. 449 , 103 So. 59, 62 , this court, commenting upon the argument that if the election to be held is void it could be tested by other proceedings and there was no occasion for injunctive relief, said: "`"`We think this is not an adequate remedy. It means the useless incurring of all the expense, loss of time, and inconvenience of holding the election, and the confusion and uncertainty which would follow such conditions.... "`"`All the expense and inconvenience to the voters and taxpayers of the county would be useless. It seems a plain duty to so determine beforehand. The rights and interests of the electorate are better promoted by a decision in advance, advising the commissioners of their want of power, and restraining them from proceeding with a meaningless and useless election.' "`"Like reasoning was em”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 990 So. 2d 314 - Wood v. Booth