Stith v. Lankin’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Hyde Park Housing Partnership v. Director of Revenue · Benoit v. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commission · Civil Service Commission of the City of St. Louis v. Members of the Board of Aldermen of the City of St. Louis · Psychcare Management, Inc. v. Department of Social Services, Division of Medical Services · Burgdorf v. Board of Police Commissioners
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'primary rule of statutory interpretation requires this Court to ascertain the intent of the legislature by considering the language used while giving the words used in the statute their plain and ordinary meaning.’ ” Stith v. Lakin, 129 S.W.3d 912, 917 (Mo.App.2004) (quoting Benoit v. Missouri Highway & Transp. Comm’n, 33 S.W.3d 663, 673 (Mo.App.2000)). When the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for statutory construction. Freeman Health System v. Wass, 124 S.W.3d 504, 509 (Mo.App.2004).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“`[I]t will be presumed that the legislature did not insert idle verbiage or superfluous language in a statute.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Furthermore, `every word, clause, sentence and provision of a statute must have effect.'”
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.