State v. Hoffmann’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “historical and textual evidence, sister state law, and policy arguments in the form of economic and historical materials to assist us in arriving at a proper interpretation of the provision in question.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Houston · Wasatch County v. Okelberry

2. “'that there is a formula of some kind for adequate framing and briefing of state constitutional issues before district courts and [appellate] court[s].' " State v. Hoffman, 2013 UT App 290 , ¶52 & n. 7, 318 P.3d 225 (quoting State v. Tiedemann, 2007 UT 49, ¶37 , 162 P.3d 1106 ). However, "independent analysis must begin with the constitutional text and rely on whatever assistance legitimate sources may provide in the interpretive process.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Wasatch County v. Okelberry

3. “[hJistorical arguments ... do not represent a sine qua non in constitutional analysis”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Houston