State v. Shushan’s Empirical Analysis
1944
Citation profile
2 district · 42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently January 2008 · most notably State v. Harvey (1972), Chappuis v. Reggie (1952)
2 district · 42 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 Ponzi v. Fessenden · Shushan v. United States · Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Richardson · State v. Lebleu · State v. Theard
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is presumed that every word, sentence or provision in the statute was intended to serve some useful purpose, that some effect is to be given to each such provision, and that no unnecessary words or provisions were used. . . . [Further, title Legislature is presumed to have enacted each statute with deliberation and with full knowledge of all existing laws on the same subject.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“`* * * There is no other reasonable rule that could be applied to conflicting statutes passed at the same session of the legislature than to hold that the later expression of the legislative will must govern * * *'”
2 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.