2004 WI App 156 - State v. Powers’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently January 2021
4 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
Applies 38 U.S.C. § 301 (Department of Veterans Affairs Act)
Relies on M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · State Ex Rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County · Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller · Village of Trempealeau v. Mikrut · 198 Wis. 2d 516 - State v. Williams
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Id., f 9. According to the relevant statutes, that meant proof that the Center was licensed by the Department of Health and Family Services. Id. The State agreed that the Center was not licensed, see id., ¶ 6, and we held that the motion to dismiss should have been granted, id., ¶¶ 20-21. Given the plain language of the statue and the undisputed fact that the Center was not licensed, this court rejected the State's argument that it was”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“in the context in which it is used; not in isolation but as part of a whole; in relation to the language of surrounding or closely- related statutes; and reasonably, to avoid absurd or unreasonable results.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Statutory language is given its common, ordinary, and accepted meaning, except that technical or specially-defined words or phrases are given their technical or special definitional meaning.”
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.