Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2005 ND 30 - State v. Buchholz

State v. Buchholz’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
states following
January 2026
most recently cited

21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently January 2026

21 state decisions

90200520102020decided

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 State v. Purdy · State v. Laib · Dickinson Newspapers, Inc. v. Jorgensen · Bruns v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau

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

  1. ““Construction of a criminal statute is a question of law, fully reviewable by this Court. Our primary goal in interpreting statutes is to ascertain the Legislature’s intentions. In ascertaining legislative intent, we first look to the statutory language and give the language its plain, ordinary and commonly understood meaning. We interpret statutes to give meaning and effect to every word, phrase, and sentence, and do not adopt a construction which would render part of the statute mere surplusage. When a statute’s language is ambiguous because it is susceptible to differing but rational meanings, we may consider extrinsic aids, including legislative history, along with the language of the statute, to ascertain the Legislature’s intent. We construe ambiguous criminal statutes against the government and in favor of the defendant.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A preliminary hearing is not held to determine a defendant’s guilt or inno cence. Therefore, Buchholz cannot assert a mistake of law defense to overcome the charged offense at a preliminary hearing. Whether Buch-holz relied on a mistake of law is an affirmative defense and must be proven by Buchholz by a preponderance of the evidence at trial.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “A person who is convicted of a felony and sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year is deemed to have been convicted of a misdemeanor. However, if an order is entered revoking a probation imposed as a part of the sentence, the person is deemed to have been convicted of a felony.”
    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.