Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 141 SW3D 591 - Conley v. State

Conley v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
September 2010
most recently cited

7 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1396R (§ 1919 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Gleaves v. Checker Cab Transit Corp., Inc. · Turner v. Jordan · Planned Parenthood of Middle Tennessee v. Sundquist · Stewart v. State · Hembree v. State

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

  1. “[W]e begin our analysis by reviewing familiar principles of statutory construction. Our “primary goal in interpreting statutes is ‘to ascertain and give effect to the intention and purpose of the legislature.’ ” Stewart v. State, 33 S.W.3d 785, 791 (Tenn.2000) (quoting Gleaves v. Checker Cab Transit Corp., 15 S.W.3d 799, 802 (Tenn.2000)). When the statutory language is unambiguous, we apply its plain and ordinary meaning. Planned Parenthood of Middle Tenn. v. Sundquist, 38 S.W.3d 1, 24 (Tenn.2000). When the statutory language is ambiguous, we must look to other sources, such as legislative history, to determine the intent and purpose of the legislature. Id.”
    3 later decisions 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.