Doe v. Nelson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The ordinary standard of review of a trial court’s decision involving the request to issue a writ of prohibition is abuse of discretion. H & W Contracting v. City of Watertown, 2001 SD 107, ¶ 24 , 633 N.W.2d 167, 175 . In this case, however, there were no issues of fact for the trial court to resolve. The issues before it were solely those of statutory and constitutional interpretation, thus being questions of law. As such, an erroneous interpretation of law if prejudicial, may be by definition an abuse of discretion. Cf. State v. Ashbrook, 1998 115, ¶ 6, 586 N.W.2d 503, 506 . ISSUE [¶ 16.] Did a circuit court judge of the Third Judicial Circuit have jurisdiction to prohibit the Senate, while the legislature is in session, from commencing legislative proceedings under rules adopted by it, to investigate allegations against Senator Sutton, one of its members, for misconduct, including sexual misconduct involving a former employee, a senate page?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gray v. Gienapp

2. “The South Dakota Constitution, unlike the Constitution of the United States, does not constitute a grant of legislative power. Instead, our constitution is but a limitation upon the legislative power and the legislature may exercise that power in any manner not expressly or inferentially proscribed by the federal or state constitutions. Thus, except as limited by the state or federal constitutions, the legislative power of the state legislature is unlimited. What the representatives of the people have not been forbidden to do by the organic law, that they may do. Consequently, in determining whether an act is unconstitutional, we search the state and federal constitutions for provisions which prohibit its enactment rather than for grants of power.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Gray v. Gienapp

3. ““In the past, ... secondary sources outside of the text of the constitutional provision have provided us with assistance.” See Wegleitner v. Sattler, 1998 SD 88, ¶ 11, n. 3 , 582 N.W.2d 688, 692 . The “historical context” of a constitutional provision is a guide to its interpretation. Cleveland v. BDL Enterprises Ins., 2003 SD 54, ¶40 , 663 N.W.2d 212, 223 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brendtro v. Nelson