State v. Bradshaw’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
2 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)
Relies on United States v. Turkette · Hj Inc v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Company · United States v. Bass · McNally v. United States · Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Independent Federation of Flight Attendants
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“when `reading the language of an act, ... we seek to render all parts [of the statute] relevant and meaningful, and we therefore presume the legislature use[d] each term advisedly and ... according to its ordinary meaning.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Anderson“at different times, in different places, by different stories, and through different methods.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Bradshaw
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.