State v. Oldner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When interpreting the constitution on appeal, our task is to read the laws as they are written, and interpret them in accordance with established principles of constitutional construction. Brewer v. Fergus , 348 Ark. 577 , 79 S.W.3d 831 (2002). It is this court's responsibility to decide what a constitutional provision means, and we will review a lower court's construction de novo. Id. We are not bound by the decision of the trial court; however, in the absence of a showing that the trial court erred in its interpretation of the law, that interpretation will be accepted as correct on appeal. Id. Language of a constitutional provision that is plain and unambiguous must be given its obvious and common meaning. Worth v. City of Rogers , 341 Ark. 12 , 14 S.W.3d 471 (2000) ; Daniel v. Jones , 332 Ark. 489 , 966 S.W.2d 226 (1998). Neither rules of construction nor rules of interpretation may be used to defeat the clear and certain meaning of a constitutional provision. Daniel v. Jones (quoting Foster v. Jefferson County Quorum Court , 321 Ark. 105 , 108, 321 Ark. 116 -A, 901 S.W.2d 809 , 810 (1995) ).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Edwards v. Campbell · Gray v. Mitchell

2. “[T]he fact that Oldner was reelected Mayor after the charges were filed against him is irrelevant. Oldner’s convictions of infamous crimes disqualify him from holding public office. This is not a disqualification that can be overcome by the will of the electorate. Simply put, he remains ineligible for holding public office in perpetuity.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Haile v. Johnston · State v. Cassell

3. “Where the purpose was in former times to render a witness incompetent (or today to authorize the impeachment of the witness), the term “infamous” properly has reference to those crimes involving fraud or dishonesty or the obstruction of justice (sometimes called crimen falsi). Where the term is used in connection with disbarment or disqualification to hold office, vote or serve on a jury, it generally has a similar meaning.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Edwards v. Campbell