Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2007 SD 22 - State v. Pursley

State v. Pursley’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

1
cited by 1 later decisions
August 2008
most recently cited

1 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Relies on Samson v. California · Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. M Scott · City of Deadwood v. Summit, Inc. · Ziegler Furniture & Funeral Home, Inc. v. Cicmanec · State v. Mattson

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

  1. “It is a fundamental rule of contract interpretation that the entire contract and all its provisions must be given meaning if that can be accomplished consistently and reasonably. However, when provisions conflict and full weight cannot be given to each, the more specific clauses are deemed to reflect the parties ... intentions-a specific provision controls a general one.”
    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.