Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 921 P.2d 1126 - Cook v. Botelho

Cook v. Botelho’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
4
states following
August 2022
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently August 2022

11 state decisions

501996200020102020decided

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 William Marbury v. James Madison · Riegel Products Corporation, Inc. v. Joseph W. Meyer · Barrett v. Duff · People v. Shawyer · McChesney v. Sampson, Governor

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

  1. “"Courts have uniformly held that an executive's power to reconsider an appointment ends when the executive takes the last act required to complete the appointment process. Marbury [v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 162 , 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)]; In re Comm'n on Governorship of Cal., 26 Cal.3d 110 , 160 Cal.Rptr. 760, 767 , 603 P.2d 1357, 1365 (1979); McChesney v. Sampson, 232 Ky. 395 , 23 S.W.2d 584, 587 (1930); State v. Essling, 268 Minn. 151 , 128 N.W.2d 307, 312-13 , (1964); Burke v. Schmidt, 86 S.D. 71 , 191 N.W.2d 281, 284 (1971). "The rule established by cases considering the issue is that the last act of the executive is the act which places the appointee in office. "`If appointment by the governor had had the effect of placing [the appointee in office] and authorizing him to perform its functions, there could be no question but that the proposition that the governor had exhausted his power in making the appointment and could not withdraw it would apply.' " McBride v. Osborn, 59 Ariz. 321 , 127 P.2d 134, 136 (1942). See also In re Comm'n on Governorship of Cal., [ 26 Cal.3d at 122 ,] 160 Cal.Rptr. [at 767], 603 P.2d at 1365 (holding that governor may withdraw appointee where appointment `does not complete the appointive process or confer even an interim right to assume office'); McChesney, [ 232 Ky. at 401 ,] 23 S.W.2d at 587 (`[U]nder our system the appointee of the Governor takes the office, enters upon the performance of its duties, and is charged with responsibility. H”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The rule established by cases considering the issue is that the last act of the executive is the act which places the appointee in office.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.