State v. Cummings’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently April 2023 · most notably 820 So. 2d 526 - State v. Mayeux (2002), 951 So. 2d 124 - State v. Dick (2007)
44 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 Williams v. People of State of New York · United States v. Tucker · Argersinger v. Hamlin · Townsend v. Burke · 63 Cal. 2d 740 - In Re Estrada
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"We created a narrow exception to the general rule for ameliorating penal legislation. In Cummings, we concluded `unless otherwise indicated by the Legislature, an ameliorating amendment to a criminal statute is reflective of the Legislature's determination that the lesser punishment is the appropriate penalty for the offense.' Because we found a `compelling inference' that the legislature intended to apply retroactively a penal statute that reduced punishment, we created the exception for ameliorating penal legislation."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“However, NDCC § 1-02-10 is but a canon of statutory construction to aid in interpreting statutes to ascertain legislative intent. It is not an end in itself. Like any rule of construction, NDCC § 1-02-10 is subservient to the goal of statutory interpretation: to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent. See Caldis v. Board of Cty. Com’rs, Grand Forks Cty., 279 N.W.2d 665 (N.D.1979); Dickinson v. Thress, 69 N.D. 748 , 290 N.W. 653 (1940). As stated by the California Supreme Court, when it interpreted a rule of construction virtually identical to NDCC § 1-02-10: “That rule of construction, however, is not a straitjacket. Where the Legislature has not set forth in so many words what it intended, the rule of construction should not be followed blindly in complete disregard of factors that may give a clue to the legislative intent. It is to be applied only after, considering all pertinent factors, it is determined that it is impossible to ascertain the legislative intent.” In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 , 48 Cal.Rptr. 172, 176 , 408 P.2d 948, 952 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Legislation lessening punishment may not be applied to final convictions because this would constitute an invalid exercise by the Legislature of the executive pardoning power.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Cook · Garcia v. State
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.