Wollman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It also appears to us that alternative remedies exist, and although they may involve some expense and delay, they are not sufficiently inadequate so as to justify circumventing the judicial process. We believe that the need for a determina tion is not so urgent as to require our opinion at this time.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In the Matter of the Interpretation of S.D. Const. Art. Xl § 2 and Viii § 16 · In Re Request for Opinion of the Supreme Court

2. “Governor Kneip’s letter of July 5 did not state the questions propounded “involve ... the exercise of (the Governor’s) executive power.” We find that they are not so involved. The Governor’s only function under the Act is to receive an annual report from the State Planning Bureau. No action the Governor proposed to take would be affected by our answer. The Governor is not required to exercise his executive power under this act. This inquiry is in this respect unlike others which we have answered. These have involved at least some contemplated action by the Governor. See In re Opinion of Supreme Court, S.D., 257 N.W.2d 442 (1977) (Governor to appoint members of bridge authority); In re Opinion of Supreme Court, 87 S.D. 156 , 204 N.W.2d 184 (1973) and In re Opinion of Justices, 87 S.D. 114 , 203 N.W.2d 526 (1973) (Governor’s power under executive reorganization); In re Opinion of Judges, 61 S.D. 107 , 246 N.W. 295 (1933) (Duty of Governor to recommend reapportionment to legislature); In re Opinion of Judges, 58 S.D. 72 , 234 N.W. 671 (1931) (Governor to assume chairmanship of Department of Rural Credits); In re Opinion of Judges, 38 S.D. 635 , 162 N.W. 536 (1917) (Governor’s power to appoint members of Rural Credit Board). We refused to issue an advisory opinion where no executive question was involved. In re Construction of Constitution, 3 S.D. 548 , 54 N.W. 650 (1893). Two inquiries which we have answered involved minimal exercise of executive power, In re Opinion of Judges, ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In the Matter of the Interpretation of S.D. Const. Art. Xl § 2 and Viii § 16