State v. Rowe’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 39 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[(1)] Any person with no prior alcohol-related enforcement contacts as defined in section 302. 525 convicted a fourth or subsequent time of driving while revoked or a county or municipal ordinance of driving while suspended or revoked where the defendant was represented by or waived the right to an attorney in writing, and where the prior three driving-while-revoked offenses occurred within ten years of the date of occurrence of the present offense; and [(2)] [A]ny person with a prior alcohol-related enforcement contact as defined in section 302. 525 convicted a third or subsequent time of driving while revoked or a county or municipal ordinance of driving while suspended or revoked where the defendant was represented by or waived the right to an attorney in writing, and where the prior two driving-while-revoked offenses occurred within ten years of the date of occurrence of the present offense and where the person received and served a sentence of ten days or more on such previous offenses[.] [[Image here]] [(3),] [0]n the second or subsequent conviction pursuant to section 577.010 [driving while intoxicated] or a fourth or subsequent conviction for any other offense.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Martin · STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. JOSHUA P. GILMORE

2. “Despite the phrase “under the laws of this state,” it seems unlikely that the Missouri legislature intended to let out-of-state drivers with multiple offenses suffer only the consequences of a misdemeanor for driving after revocation while subjecting Missouri drivers to a felony for the same act. Legislative intent can only be derived from the words of the statute itself. [¶] Courts do not have the authority to read into a statute a legislative intent that is contrary to its plain and ordinary meaning. The legislature may wish to change the statute to cover out-of-state multiple-offense drivers such as Rowe. But this Court, under the guise of discerning legislative intent, cannot rewrite the statute.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. City of Wellston v. SBC Communications, Inc. · State Ex Rel. KCP & L Greater Missouri Operations Co. v. Cook

3. “A person commits the crime of driving while revoked if he operates a motor vehicle on a highway when his license or driving privilege has been canceled, suspended or revoked under the laws of this state and acts with criminal negligence with respect to knowledge of the fact that his driving privilege has been canceled, suspended or revoked.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. RHONDA PARROTT, as Surviving Spouse of JAMES KELSO PARROT, and Individually, Plaintiff-Respondent v. SEVERS TRUCKING, LLC, and BRANDON G. BLACK