Olson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The fact that under the wording of the old law the driver must have known that an injury had been, caused by his carelessness or by an accident before his leaving the place where it occurred without stopping and giving the information the statute required constituted an offense, when such is not true under the new, does not signify that the subject matter of Section 27 is different from that of subdivision five, because the former is broader than the latter in that its provisions apply to the driver of any vehicle which strikes a person or • collides with another vehicle whether he knows of it or not. Knowledge is not an ingredient of the offense under the new provision but a lack of it would doubtless constitute a good defense unless it appeared that in driving-the car the operator was guilty of conduct so careless and wanton that the law would presume that he knew it.””

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

2. ““ ‘When a statute has been enacted by the legislative power of the state, and has become a law, no other statute, law or rule, is continued in force because it is consistent with the provisions of such statute, passed subsequently thereto, but in all cases provided for by such subsequent statute, all statutes, laws and rules, theretofore in force in this state, whether consistent or not with the provisions of such subsequent statutes, unless expressly continued in force by it, shall be repealed and abrogated. ’ ’ ’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mahoney v. County of Maricopa

3. ““ ‘Where the later of two acts . . . covers the whole subject matter of the earlier one, not purporting to amend it, and plainly shows that it was intended to be a substitute for the earlier act, such later act will operate as a repeal of the earlier one, though the two are not repugnant.’ Grant v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 66 W. Va. 175 , 66 S. E. 709, 710 ; Cunningham v. Cokely, 79 W. Va. 60 , 90 S. E. 546 , L. R. A. 1917B, 718; 25 R. C. L. 915.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kitchel v. Gadsden Hotel Co.