Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 335 P3D 487 - State v. Mares

State v. Mares’s Empirical Analysis

2014

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
February 2026
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Mapp v. Ohio · Stovall v. Denno · Teague v. Lane · Johnson v. State of New Jersey · Griffith v. Kentucky

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

  1. “In interpreting statutes, our primary consideration is to determine the legislature's intent. All statutes must be construed in pari materia and, in ascertaining the meaning of a given law, all statutes relating to the same subject or having the same general purpose must be considered and construed in harmony. Statutory construction is a question of law, so our standard of review is de novo. We endeavor to interpret statutes in accordance with the legislature's intent. We begin by making an inquiry respecting the ordinary and obvious meaning of the words employed according to their arrangement and connection. We construe the statute as a whole, giving effect to every word, clause, and sentence, and we construe all parts of the statute in pari materia. When a statute is sufficiently clear and unambiguous, we give effect to the plain and ordinary meaning of the words and do not resort to the rules of statutory construction. Moreover, we must not give a statute a meaning that will nullify its operation if it is susceptible of another interpretation. Moreover, we will not enlarge, stretch, expand, or extend a statute to matters that do not fall within its express provisions.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[ainy juvenile offender sentenced to life imprisonment under the former law is now, by operation of the amended parole statutes, serving a sentence of life imprisonment with eligibility for parole in twenty-five years, and a juvenile offender serving such a sentence is not required to file a Rule 85 motion to implement that revised sentence.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “altered the permissible methods by which the State [can] exercise its continuing power ... to punish juvenile homicide offenders by life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.