State v. Kalvig’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently April 2012 · most notably Schatz v. Interfaith Care Center (2012), State v. Eaton (1980)
29 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 1 Cal. 3d 475 - People v. Gilbert · 43 Cal. 2d 651 - In Re Williamson · Beck v. Groe · State v. Fary · People v. Lubow
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When a general provision in a law is in conflict with a special provision in the same or another law, the two shall be construed, if possible, so that effect may be given to both. If the conflict between the two provisions be irreconcilable, the special provision shall prevail and shall be construed as an exception to the general provision, unless the general provision shall be enacted at a later session and it shall be the manifest intention of the legislature that such general provision shall prevail.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Williams“Whoever obtains, or attempts to obtain, or aids or abets any person to obtain by means of a wilfully false statement or representation, or by impersonation, or other fraudulent device; (1) Assistance to which he is not entitled; (2) Assistance greater than that to which he is justly entitled; is guilty of a misdemeanor; and, upon the conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100 or imprisoned for not more than three months.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Williams“Our decision here does not have any substantial precedential value with respect to welfare fraud because the current statute making such activity a misdemeanor, Minn.St. 1971, § 256.98, has been amended by L. 1973, c. 348, so as to make such activity a crime chargeable under our general theft statute, Minn.St. 609.52.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Williams
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.