State v. Romanick’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “This Court’s discretionary authority to issue supervisory writs under N.D. Const, art. VI, § 2, and N.D.C.C. § 27-02-04 cannot be invoked as a matter - of right and is exercised on a case-by-case basis’, considering the unique circumstances of each case. State v. Louser, 2017 ND 10, ¶ 5 , 890 N.W.2d 1 ; State ex rel. Madden v. Rustad, 2012 ND 242, ¶ 5 , 823 N.W.2d 767 ; State ex rel. Roseland v. Herauf, 2012 ND 151, ¶ 3 , 819 N.W.2d 546 ; State ex rel Harris v. Lee, 2010 ND 88, ¶ 6 , 782 N.W.2d 626; Forum Commc’ns Co. v. Paulson, 2008 ND 140, ¶ 8 , 752 N.W.2d 177 . ‘We exercise our authority to.issue supervisory writs rarely and cautiously, and. only to rectify errors and prevent injustice in extraordinary cases when no adequate alternative remedy exists.” Lee , at ¶6. We generally will decline to exercise supervisory jurisdiction if the proper remedy is an appeal.” Herauf , at ¶ 3. “Exercise of supervisory jurisdiction may be warranted when issues of vital concern regarding matters of important public interest are presented.” Lee , at ¶ 6.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Rath