Hede v. Gilstrap’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably In Re Adoption of CF (2005), In re the Adoption of Infant Sherman (2008)
1 federal appellate · 31 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
Relies on Stanley v. Illinois · Griswold v. State of Connecticut · Troxel v. Granville · Meyer v. State of Nebraska · Wisconsin v. Yoder
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“full text of the statute [or regulation], paying attention to its internal structure and the functional relation between the parts and the whole.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“"This court interprets statutes by giving effect to the legislature's intent.... We begin by making an inquiry relating to the ordinary and obvious meaning of the words employed according to their arrangement and connection.... We give effect to every word, clause, and sentence and construe together all components of a statute in pari materia. ... Statutory interpretation is a question of law.... We review questions of law de novo without affording deference to the district court's decision." Worcester v. State, 2001 WY 82, ¶ 13 , 30 P.3d 47, 52 (Wyo.2001). If a statute is clear and unambiguous, we simply give effect to its plain meaning.... Only when we find a statute to be ambiguous do we resort to the general principles of statutory construction.... An ambiguous statute is one whose meaning is uncertain because it is susceptible to more than one interpretation.... "It is a basic rule of statutory construction that courts may try to determine legislative intent by considering the type of statute being interpreted and what the legislature intended by the language used, viewed in light of the objects and purposes to be accomplished. ... Furthermore, when we are confronted with two possible but conflicting conclusions, we will choose the one most logically designed to cure the mischief or inequity that the legislature was attempting to accomplish." In re Collicott, 2001 WY 35, ¶ 9 , 20 P.3d 1077, 1080 (Wyo.2001).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“usurp the power of the legislature by deciding what should have been said.”
3 later decisions 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.