State v. Cardwell’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 4 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably State v. Velasco (2000), Cogswell v. American Transit Insurance (2007)
4 federal appellate · 4 district · 23 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 Nebraska v. Wyoming · State v. Ross · Conway v. Town of Wilton · State v. James · State v. Payne
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he process of statutory interpretation, involves a reasoned search for the intention of the legislature. . . . In seeking to discern that intent, we look to the words of the statute itself, to the legislative history and circumstances surrounding its enactment, to the legislative policy it was designed to implement, and to its relationship to existing legislation and common law principles governing the same general subject matter. . . . Furthermore, we presume that laws are enacted in view of existing relevant statutes . . . and that [s]tatutes are to be interpreted with regard to other relevant statutes because the legislature is presumed to have created a consistent body of law. . . . In addition, when the statute being construed is a criminal statute, it must be construed strictly against the state in favor of the accused.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[n]owhere does this section require the court to consider, in determining whether to assess a penalty, whether . . . anyone was actually harmed by the unfair or deceptive trade practice. . . . [T]he section does not require that the defendant have had actual knowledge that the practice was unfair or deceptive.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“no evidence was submitted to the trial court of any harm resulting to anyone on account of his failure to file the certificate; and . . . [he] did not knowingly fail to file the certificate but, instead, lacked any knowledge that he was required to do so.”
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.