Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2002 ND 53 - Kelsh v. Jaeger

Kelsh v. Jaeger’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
November 2025
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently November 2025

16 state decisions

90200220102020decided

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 County of Stutsman v. State Historical Society of North Dakota · Southern Valley Grain Dealers Ass'n v. Board of County Commissioners · Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. v. Johanneson · Ferch v. Housing Authority of Cass County · State v. Hagerty

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

  1. “"Principles of construction applicable to statutes are generally available to construction of the Constitution." In Kelsh v. Jaeger , 2002 ND 53 , ¶ 7, 641 N.W.2d 100 , we outlined several principles for construing constitutional provisions: When interpreting the state constitution, our overriding objective is to give effect to the intent and purpose of the people adopting the constitutional statement. The intent and purpose of a constitutional provision is to be determined, if possible, from the language itself. We give words in a constitutional provision their plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning. When interpreting constitutional provisions, we apply general principles of statutory construction. We must give effect and meaning to every provision and reconcile, if possible, apparently inconsistent provisions. We presume the people do not intend absurd or ludicrous results in adopting constitutional provisions, and we therefore construe such provisions to avoid those results.”
    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.