Pagel v. Franscell’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently September 2022
13 state decisions
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 Parker Land & Cattle Co. v. Wyoming Game & Fish Commission · Hopper v. All Pet Animal Clinic, Inc. · Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Wyoming State Board of Equalization · State Ex Rel. Motor Vehicle Division v. Holtz · Basin Electric Power Cooperative v. State Board of Control
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'A statute is clear and unambiguous if its wording is such that reasonable persons are able to agree on its meaning with consistency and predictability'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“We review the trial court’s conclusions of law de novo. The trial court’s findings of fact are subject to the clearly erroneous standard: The factual findings of a judge are not entitled to the limited review afforded a jury verdict. While the findings are presumptively correct, the appellate court may examine all of the properly admissible evidence in the record. Due regard is given to the opportunity of the trial judge to assess the credibility of the witnesses, and our review does not entail re-weighing disputed evidence. Findings of fact will not be set aside unless they are clearly erroneous. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Also, in reviewing a trial court’s findings of fact, we assume that the evidence of the prevailing party below is true and give that party every reasonable inference that can fairly and reasonably be drawn from it. We do not substitute ourselves for the trial court as a finder of facts; instead, we defer to those findings unless they are unsupported by the record or erroneous as a matter of law. We affirm the trial court’s findings if there is any evidence to support them.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brown v. Johnston“When the language is not clear or is ambiguous, the court must look to the mischief the statute was intended to cure, the historical setting surrounding its enactment, the public policy of the' state, the conclusions of law, and other prior and contemporaneous facts and cireumstances, making use of the accepted rules of construction to ascertain a legislative intent that is reasonable and consistent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.