State v. ARTHUR H.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[o]ur fundamental objective is to ascertain and give effect to the apparent intent 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 ... § 1-2z directs us first to consider the text of the statute itself and its relationship to other statutes. If, after examining such text and considering such relationship, the meaning of such text is plain and unambiguous and does not yield absurd or unworkable results, extratextual evidence of the meaning of the statute shall not be considered.... When a statute is not plain and unambiguous, we also look for interpretive guidance 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....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Orr

2. “that a defendant does not have a constitutional right to cross-examine witnesses who provide statements for the court's consideration in noncapital sentencing proceedings.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 993 So. 2d 135 - Box v. State

3. “[a]s with any question of statutory construction, our review of this threshold question as to the requirements of the statute is plenary”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Orr