Prado v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 30 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[E]xceptions in a legislative enactment are to be strictly but reasonably construed, consistent with the manifest * reason and purpose of the law.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Twiggs · Mountain Hill, L.L.C. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment

2. “a. the act or omission was not within the scope of employment; or b. the act or the failure to act was because of actual fraud, willful misconduct or actual malice; or c. the defense of the action or proceeding by the Attorney General would create a conflict of interest between the State and the employee or former employee. [N.J.S.A. 59:10A-2.J”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Prado v. State · Robert Lavezzi v. State of N.J. (072856)

3. “At a staff meeting on June 7, 2001, defendant Harry Pappas, Special Assistant to the Commissioner of the Department of Labor, addressed Department of Labor employees for several hours concerning changes intended both "to improve enforcement of prevailing wage regulations and to achieve higher performance standards by the field staff.” Afterwards, a number of those present complained that Pappas made “offensive and/or inappropriate comments,” particularly in describing Hispanic workers and women. As a result of those complaints, the Labor Department’s Affirmative Action Officer, Gail Ericson, conducted an investigation, interviewing Pappas and nineteen of the twenty-six persons who attended the meeting. All those interviewed stated that Pappas “referred to non-English-speaking workers at inspection sites as “wetbacks.’ ” Several remembered Pappas describing the “Spanish language as ‘jibber-jabber’ or some similar phrase.” Seven staff members stated that Pappas “used derogatory terms in reference to women, variously reported as ‘bitch,’ ‘skirt,’ or ‘dolly.’ ” It was also reported that he told a female administrator to “ ‘go sit at [her] desk and count paper clips.’ ” Various staff members described Pappas’ general behavior during the meeting as “aggressive, demeaning, arrogant, and insensitive.” Additionally, they claimed that Pap-pas boasted that he had a “close relationship with the Commissioner and Governor” and “that anything he said or did” had their “full backing.” During”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Prado v. State