Alvers v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 20 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"(1) who has knowingly or intentionally received any proceeds directly or indirectly derived from a pattern of racketeering activity, and who uses or invests those proceeds or the proceeds derived from them to acquire an interest in real property or to establish or to operate an enterprise; (2) who through a pattern of racketeering activity, knowingly or intentionally acquires or maintains, either directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of real property or an enterprise; or (3) who is employed by or associated with an enterprise, and who knowingly or intentionally conducts or otherwise participates in the activities of that enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity;"”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana · Dellenbach v. State

2. “While we are well aware of the prohibition against judicial legislation, we are also aware that there is often a fine line between such prohibited activity and permissible interpretation which provides legal guidance as to legislative intent. In fact, determining legislative intent is foremost in construing any statute and, wherever possible, this court will give deference to that intent [citations omitted]. 7 Indispensable to ascertaining the legislature’s intent is a consideration of the goals sought to be achieved and the reasons and policy underlying a statute [ ]. Consequently, it is necessary to view a statute within the context of the entire act, rather than in isolation, when construing the statute [ ]. In addition, words are given their plain meaning and this court may also look beyond the statute’s language to the titles and headings of the statute [ ]. Furthermore, we may look to subsequent enactments of legislation [].... Moreover, it cannot be presumed that a legislature expects their enactment to be applied in an illogical or absurd manner, inconsistent with its underlying policies and goals [ ]. Of course, a penal statute, such as the one involved here, must be strictly construed against the state [ ]. However, such stat utes must not be construed so narrowly as to exclude cases fairly covered thereby [ ].”

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

3. “It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that “when the legislature enacts a statutory amendment to a prior statute, a presumption arises that the legislature intended to change the law unless it clearly appears that the amendment was made only to express the original intention of the legislature more clearly.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bonge v. Risinger