N.S. v. D.M.’s Empirical Analysis
2018
Citation profile
8 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 22 U.S.C. § 9001 · 22 U.S.C. § 9003
Relies on Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. · 8 Cal. 4th 791 - Ghirardo v. Antonioli · 2 Cal. 4th 593 - DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc. · 39 Cal. 4th 1164 - Wells v. One2One Learning Foundation · 54 Cal. 3d 245 - Walnut Creek Manor v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'Where the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, we follow the plain meaning of the statute and need not examine other indicia of legislative intent.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Y.H. v. M.H.“Where appropriate, we turn to legislative history as an extrinsic aid to evaluate legislative intent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Y.H. v. M.H.“' "We begin with the fundamental rule that our primary task is to determine the lawmakers' intent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Y.H. v. M.H.
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.