Blake v. Rupe’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““This court, in Wendling v. Cundall, Wyo., 568 P.2d 888, 890 (1977), has expressed an Illinois definition of ‘good faith’ as being honest, lawful intent, and the condition of acting without knowledge of fraud and without interest to assist in a fraudulent or otherwise unlawful scheme, together with the definition set out in Cone v. Ivinson, 4 Wyo. 203 , 33 P. 31 (1893): “ ‘ * * * “Good faith consists in an honest intention to abstain from taking any un-conscientious advantage'of another, even though the forms or technicalities of law, together with an absence of all information or belief of facts which would render the transaction unconscientious.” ’ “While the term ‘reasonable’ hardly needs defining, this court has undertaken to do so in Claussen v. State, 21 Wyo. 505, 516 , 133 P. 1055, 1056 (1913), wherein it was explained from Webster ‘as having the faculty of reason; rational; governed by reason; being under the influence of reason; thinking, speaking, or acting rationally, or according to the dictates of reason; agreeable to reason; just; rational.’ * * * ” 651 P.2d at 1110 .”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kimbley v. City of Green River · Darrar v. Bourke

2. “"a qualified immunity is available to officers of the executive branch of government, the variation being dependent upon the scope of discretion and responsibilities of the office and all the cireumstances as they reasonably appeared at the time of the action on which liability is sought to be based. It is the existence of reasonable grounds for the belief formed at the time and in light of all the cireumstances, coupled with good-faith belief, that affords a basis for qualified immunity of executive officers for acts performed in the course of official conduct. * * *"”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brown v. Avery · DeWald v. State

3. “" Motions for new trial or to alter or amend a judgment; time limit. — Motions for new trial and motions to alter or amend a judgment shall be determined within sixty (60) days after the entry of the judgment, and if not so determined shall be deemed denied, unless within such sixty (60) days the determination is continued by order of the court but a continuance shall not extend the time to a day more than 90 days from the date of entry of judgment."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Martinez v. City of Cheyenne · Paxton Resources, L.L.C. v. Brannaman