Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 146 N.J. Super. 30 - State v. Schumm

146 N.J. Super. 30 - State v. Schumm’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
October 2014
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently October 2014

11 state decisions

4019771980199020002010decided

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 United States v. Wiltberger · NJ Builders, Owners and Managers Association v. Blair · Jersey City Chapter of Property Owner's Protective Ass'n v. City Council of Jersey City · Dvorkin v. Township of Dover · Watt v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Franklin

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. “the statute obviously intends to penalize all those responsible for creating a situation where the statutory protection given the public is denied to them. Thus, not only is an “owner or registrant” who operates such a vehicle within the prohibition of the statute but also such “owner or registrant” who “causes to be operated” such a vehicle. In the same paragraph is the language in which we are concerned, covering the operator who operates and one who “causes a motor vehicle to be operated” and who knows or should know that it is uninsured. To construe the language as defendant would have us do, i.e., that only one who actually physically operates is subject to the statute, would amount to a rewriting of the section as though it applies only to “any operator who operates” with excision of the language “or causes a motor vehicle to be operated.” Such interpretive surgery so as to make that language superfluous or meaningless is impermissible. [Z&id.]”
    1 later decision 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.