State v. Moran’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 15 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The process of statutory interpretation involves a reasoned search for the intention of the legislature .... In other words, we seek to determine, in a reasoned manner, the meaning of the statutory language as applied to the facts of the case, including the question of whether the language actually does apply. In seeking to determine that meaning, 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.... Thus, we do not follow the plain meaning rule. In performing this task, we begin with a searching examination of the language of the statute, because that is the most important factor to be considered.... We do not, however, end with the language. We recognize, further, that the purpose or purposes of the legislation, and the context of the language, broadly understood, are directly relevant to the meaning of the language of the statute. This does not mean, however, that we will not, in a given case, follow what may be regarded as the plain meaning of the language .... the more strongly the bare text supports such a meaning, the more persuasive the extratextual sources of meaning will have to be in order to yield a different meaning.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 415 F. Supp. 2d 115 - OCA v. Christie

2. “[t]he party claiming a constitutional violation bears the heavy burden of proving that the challenged policy has no reasonable relationship to any legitimate state purpose. . . .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Batte-Holmgren v. Commissioner of Public Health