March v. Thursby’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 28 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Although the circuit court generally recited that the elements of a protection order had been shown, i.e., jurisdiction, venue, status as a family or household member, and proper notice and opportunity to be heard, the circuit court merely concluded that domestic abuse had occurred. No findings, oral or written, support that conclusion. Mere concern about an ongoing and inconclusive police investigation does not support a finding of abuse. The circuit court’s general statements did not “indicate which version of the evidence [it] believed” or “indicate how the evidence met the statutory elements of [domestic abuse]” to permit the issuance of the protection order. Therefore, in this case, the circuit court erred by not entering findings of fact and conclusions of law that would have permitted a “meaningful review” of whether the protection order was appropriately granted.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Castano v. Ishol

2. “Here, the circuit court indicated that it believed [the petitioner’s] version of the events. But the written finding did not •correspond with the oral testimony of [the petitioner]. Findings must be entered “with sufficient specificity to permit meaningful review.” Although the court indicated it believed [the petitioner’s] version of the events, it did not “indicate how the evidence met the statutory elements of stalking.” The circuit court failed to “insure that the findings of fact and conclusions of law are clearly entered.” This failure requires reversal.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Castano v. Ishol

3. “[s]ubject matter jurisdiction is only dependent on the nature of the proceeding and the relief sought”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Petersen v. S.D. Bd. of Pardons and Paroles