Rhymes v. Rhymes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In accord with these rules, the interpretation of any statutory provision starts with the language itself. Oubre v. Louisiana Citizens Fair Plan, 11-0097, p. 11 (La.12/16/11), 79 So.3d 987, 997 . When the provision is clear and unambiguous and its application does not lead to absurd consequences, its language must be given effect, and its provisions must be construed so as to give effect to the purpose indicated by a fair interpretation of the language used. La. Civ.Code art. 9; La.Rev.Stat. § 1:4; In re Clegg, 10-0323, p. 20 (La.7/6/10), 41 So.3d 1141, 1154 . Unequivocal provisions are not subject to judicial construction |2and should be applied by giving words their generally understood meaning. La. Civ. Code art. 11; see also Snowton v. Sewerage and Water Bd., 08-0399, pp. 5-6 (La.3/17/09), 6 So.3d 164, 168 . Words and phrases must be read with their context and construed according to the common and approved usage of the language. La. Civ.Code art. 11; La. Rev.Stat. § 1:3. The word “shall” is mandatory and the word “may” is permissive. La.Rev.Stat. § 1:3; Oubre , 11-0097 at 12, 79 So.3d at 997 . Every word, sentence, or provision in a law is presumed to be intended to serve some useful purpose, that some effect is given to each such provision, and that no unnecessary words or provisions were employed. Colvin v. Louisiana Patient’s Compensation Fund Oversight Bd., 06-1104, p. 6 (La.1/17/07), 947 So.2d 15, 19 ; Moss v. State, 05-1963, p. 15 (La.4/4/06), 925 So.2d 1185, 1196 ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 129 So. 3d 554 - State v. Davis