State v. Hastings’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

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.

1. “[I]f [a statute’s language] is clear and unambiguous, no further interpretation is required.... In construing statutes, the function of the court is simply to ascertain and declare what is in terms or substance contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted or to omit what has been inserted ... we conclude the District Court erred in construing the statutes at issue here by looking beyond their plain, unambiguous language.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Juvenile Male · State v. Nelson

2. “Section 46-18-201(7), MCA, and the SVORA statutes require a “conviction” before SVORA registration requirements may be imposed. The statutes are unambiguous in that regard. Thus, because it is undisputed that Hastings’ youth court adjudication did not constitute a ‘faonviction” as contemplated in § 46-23-502(7), MCA, the SVORA registration requirements could not be imposed by a district court under those statutes.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Juvenile Male

3. “we first look to the statute's plain language. If that language is clear and unambiguous, no further interpretation is required.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Nelson