Cranston v. Thomson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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. The parties have existing and genuine, as distinguished from theoretical, rights or interests. . 2, The controversy must be one upon which the judgment of the court may effectively operate, as distinguished from a debate or argument evoking a purely political, administrative, philosophical or academic conclusion. 3. It must be a controversy the Jud1c1a1 determination of which will have the force and effect of a final judgment in law or decree in equity upon the rights, status or other legal relationships of one or more of the real parties in interest, or, wanting these qualities to be of such great and overriding public moment as to constitute the legal equivalent of all of them. 4. -The proceedings must be genuinely adversary in character and not a mere disputation, but advanced with sufficient mili-taney to engender a thorough research and analysis of the major issues.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. City of Torrington, a Wyoming municipal corporation v. Leroy P. Smith, Z & W Mill Inc., Russell Zimmer, Torrington Conservative Citizens, a Wyoming corporation, and Wyoming Public Service Commission · JonMichael Guy v. Robert Lampert, Wyoming Department of Corrections Director, and Steve Hargett, Wyoming Medium Correctional Institution Warden

2. “'for advisory opinions on multifaceted matters, answers to which could scarcely fail to proliferate rather than resolve controversy'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Baird v. State · Miller v. Weaver

3. ““ ‘First, a justiciable controversy requires parties having existing and genuine, as distinguished from theoretical, rights or interests. Second, the controversy must be one upon which the judgment of the court may effectively operate, as distinguished from a debate or argument evoking a purely political, administrative, philosophical or academic conclusion. Third, it must be a controversy the judicial determination of which will have the force and effect of a final judgment in law or decree in equity upon the rights, status or other legal relationships of one or more of the real parties in interest, or, wanting these qualities be of such great and overriding public moment as to constitute the legal equivalent of all of them. Finally, the proceedings must be genuinely adversary in character and not a mere disputation, but advanced with sufficient militancy to engender a thorough research and analysis of the major issues. Any controversy lacking these elements becomes an exercise in academics and is not properly before the courts for solution.’ ” (Emphasis in original.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kurpjuweit v. Northwestern Development Co.