Broderick v. Denbo’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““THIS COURT BEING DULY ADVISED IN THE PREMISES now finds that the problems in this case could have been averted. However, since there was a Joint (for practical purposes) Motion of Appellants and Appellee for Substitution of Party as to Issue One on file some two (2) months before the issuance of the Court of Appeals’s opinion in this case, this Court believes counsel for Sheriff Wells was justified in believing he should wait on the Granting of the Motion to Substitute or he would not have authority to file a Motion to Dismiss the appeal as to Issue One. We would note that it would have been better for Sheriff Wells to tender a ‘Motion to Dismiss’ along with a ‘Petition to be Substituted as a Party’ at the time the affidavit of Denbo was obtained. Accordingly, this Court now GRANTS ‘Appellants’ Petition for Transfer’ and directs the Court of Appeals to: 1. Vacate its opinion, as to Issue One filed December 18, 1980, in Cause No. 2-1278 A 418; and 2. Vacate its opinion on rehearing filed February 5,1981, under Cause No. 2-1278 A 418; and 3. Grant ‘Appellants’ Motion to Dismiss Issue One’ filed on December 17, 1980.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Broderick v. Denbo