Hunter v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
10 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Bowsher v. Synar · State Ex Rel. Schneider v. Bennett · Rybachek v. United States Environmental Protection Agency · University of Connecticut Chapter v. Governor · Salmon Brook Convalescent Home, Inc. v. Commission on Hospitals & Health Care
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Inasmuch as it is the function of the executive branch to expend funds, it must be implied that the "supreme executive magistrate," as head of one of the three coequal branches of government, is not obliged to spend the money foolishly or needlessly. The executive branch is the organ of government charged with the responsibility of, and is normally the only branch capable of, having detailed and contemporaneous knowledge regarding spending decisions. The constitutional separation of powers and responsibilities, therefore, contemplates that the Governor be allowed some discretion to exercise his judgment not to spend money in a wasteful fashion, provided that he has determined reasonably that such a decision will not compromise the achievement of underlying legislative purposes and goals.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Hunter, 865 A.2d at 392 ; see Duquette, 154 N.H. at 747 , 919 A.2d 767 . As the Hunter court explained: The focus of a separation of powers inquiry is not whether one branch of government is exercising certain powers that may in some way pertain to another branch, but whether the power exercised so encroaches upon another branch's power as to usurp from that branch its constitutionally defined function. As stated by James Madison,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) the official revenue estimate for the general, transportation or federal fund must have declined by 2% or more from that in effect on January 15, 2002; (2) the Legislature must not be in session; (3) the plan must be necessary to ensure a balanced budget in the general or transportation funds; (4) the plan must be designed to minimize any negative effects on the delivery of services and on local budgets . . . ; and (5) the plan must reflect the priorities established by the general assembly in the fiscal year 2003 appropriations act.”
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.