Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 910 P.2d 21 - Feazel v. Martinez

Feazel v. Martinez’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
June 2015
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently June 2015

9 state decisions

70199620002010decided

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 Matter of Election Reform Amendment · Say v. Baker · In re the Title, Ballot Title, & Submission Clause Approved February 2, 1994, Respecting the Proposed Initiated Constitutional Amendment Concerning Limited Gaming in the City of Antonito · In re the Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary Adopted May 16, 1990 · In re the Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary With Regard to a Proposed Petition for an Amendment to the Constitution of the State Adding Section 2 to Article VII

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. “The summary must ordinarily include a fiscal impact statement in order to inform the electorate of the fiscal implications of the proposal. The Board is vested with discretion regarding how to best describe the fiscal impact without creating prejudice for or against the proposal.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “unambiguously state the principle of the provision sought to be added, amended, or repealed.”
    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.