Leo v. Cornucopia Restaurant’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

42 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[The plain meaning rule’s] beguiling simplicity may mask' a host of reasons why a statute, apparently clear- and unambiguous on its face, may for one reason or another give rise to legitimate (i.e., non-frivolous) differences of opinion concerning the statute’s meaning. In such a case, it can rarely be said that the legislation is indeed free from all ambiguity and is crystal clear in its meaning. While ... one part of the statute may appear absolutely clear and certain to the point of mathematical precision, lurking in another part of the enactment, or even in the same section, or in the history and background of the legislation, or in an apparent conflict between the statutory wording and the overall legislative intent, there may be one or more provisions giving rise to genuine uncertainty as to what the legislature was trying to accomplish. In such a case, it is part of the essence of judicial responsibility to search for and effectuate the legislative intent — the purpose or object — underlying the statute.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Rivera

2. “A. Claims for workers’ compensation shall be allowed only: (1) when the worker has sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment; (2) when the accident was reasonably incident to his employment; and (3) when the disability is a natural and direct result of the accident. B. In all cases where the employer or his insurance carrier deny that an alleged disability is a natural and direct result of the accident, the worker must establish that causal connection as a probability by expert testimony of a health care provider, as defined in Section 52-4^1 NMSA 1978, testifying within the area of his expertise.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Buchanan v. Kerr-McGee Corp.

3. “In this case, we believe Claimant's situation is similar to that of the worker in Reynolds ; thus, we conclude that in determining Claimant's residual physical capacity, the Judge correctly applied the applicable law and considered the effects of both the accidental injury and Claimant's preexisting impairment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Edmiston v. City of Hobbs