Whipple v. Howser’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently August 2005 · most notably Adams v. Buffalo Forge Co. (1982), State v. Reams (1981)
32 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.
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"More specifically, in State ex rel Cox v. Wilson, 277 Or. 747 , 562 P.2d 172 (1977), we held (at 750) that: "`"There is, of course, no more persuasive evidence of the purpose of a statute than the words by which the legislature undertook to give expression to its wishes."' Quoting United States v. American Trucker's Ass'ns, 310 U.S. 534, 542-44 , 60 S.Ct. 1059 , 84 L.Ed. 1345 (1940)." "As also held in Lane County v. Heintz Const. Co. et al., 228 Or. 152, 157 , 364 P.2d 627 (1960), quoting with approval from Barrett v. Union Bridge Co., 117 Or. 566, 570 , 245 P. 308 , 45 A.L.R. 527 (1926): "`Section 715, Or.L. [now ORS 174.010], directs that the courts in the construction of statutes, are "simply to ascertain and declare what is in terms or in substance contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted, nor to omit what has been inserted." We ought never to import into a statute words which are not to be found there, unless from a careful consideration of the entire statute it be ascertained that to import such words is necessary to give effect to the obvious and plain intention and meaning of the legislature. Under the directions of the statute last referred to, we are not at liberty to give effect to any supposed intention or meaning in the legislature, unless the words to be imported into the statute are, in substance at least, contained in it.'" (Emphasis in original.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"In the construction of a statute, the office of the judge is simply to ascertain and declare what is, in terms or in substance, contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted; and where there are several provisions or particulars such construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[t]he starting point in every case involving a determination of legislative intent is the language of the statute itself.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Charmley v. Lewis · State v. Reams
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.