Lekanidis v. Bendetti’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 18 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Questions of law such as statutory interpretation are reviewed by the Court de novo.... The purpose of statutory construction is to discover the true intention of the law which is to be ascertained primarily from the language expressed in the statute. The intent of a statute is determined from what the legislature said, rather than what the Court thinks it should have said, and the Court must confine itself to the language used. Words and phrases in a statute must be given their plain meaning and effect. When the language in a statute is clear, certain and unambiguous, there is no reason for construction, and the Court’s only function is to declare the meaning of the statute as clearly expressed. Since statutes must be construed according to their intent, the intent must be determined from the statute as a whole, as well as enactments relating to the same subject.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re the Guardianship of T.L.R. · Cromwell v. Rapid City Police Department

2. “[B]ecause the issue of the validity of service of process is a question of law, `we review the trial court's decision de novo, with no deference given to the trial court's legal conclusions.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re DF · Edsill v. Schultz

3. “`Moreover, there are several compelling reasons to limit the application of the substantial compliance standard to personal service of process. In cases of personal service of process, a court can be reasonably certain that the defendant had notice of the impending suit because the defendant was present for the service. Substituted service of process, in contrast, carries the risk that the defendant never received notice. Allowing only substantial compliance with the requirements for substituted service of process further increases the risk involving an unsuspecting defendant in a lawsuit about which the defendant did not have notice. Arguably, only strict compliance with the requirements of substituted service of process will sufficiently reduce this risk.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Edsill v. Schultz