State v. Schultz’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently November 2020 · most notably State v. Dohlman (2006), State v. Allen (2006)
30 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 Fuller v. Iowa Department of Human Services · Henriksen v. Younglove Construction · T & K Roofing Co. v. Iowa Department of Education · Lockhart v. Cedar Rapids Community School District · State v. Soppe
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When the text of a statute is plain and its meaning clear, the court should not search for meaning beyond the express terms of the statute.... ” However, where the language of a statute is ambiguous, so that reasonable minds would differ on the meaning, we turn to our rules of interpretation. The polestar of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the legislative intent of a statute. We “consider the objects sought to be accomplished and the evils and mischiefs sought to be remedied, seeking a result that will advance, rather than defeat, the statute’s purpose.” Our goal is to look at what the legislature said, not what it might or should have said.... [W]e will not construe a statute in a way [that] creates an impractical or absurd result, nor will we speculate as to the probable legislative intent beyond what the language clearly states.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Tesch · Klinge v. Bentien““When the text of a statute is plain and its meaning clear, the court should not search for meaning beyond the express terms of the statute .... ” However, where the language of a statute is ambiguous, so that reasonable minds would differ on the meaning, we turn to our rules of interpretation. The polestar of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the legislative intent of a statute. We “consider the objects sought to be accomplished and the evils and mis-chiefs sought to be remedied, seeking a result that will advance, rather than defeat, the statute’s purpose.” ... [W]e will not construe a statute in a way [that] creates an impractical or absurd result, nor will we speculate as to the probable legislative intent beyond what the language clearly states.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ross“When the text of a statute is plain and its meaning clear, the court should not search for meaning beyond the express terms of the statute ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.