State v. Medrano’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

58 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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(5) grants a motion to suppress evidence, a confession, or an admission, if jeopardy has not attached in the case and if the prosecuting attorney certifies to the trial court that the appeal is not taken for the purpose of delay and that the evidence, confession, or admission is of substantial importance in the case....”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State of Texas v. Zermeno, Jose Guadalupe · State v. Daniel Villegas

2. “[W]hen a legislature reenacts a law using the same terms that have been judicially construed in a particular manner, one may reasonably infer that the legislature approved of the judicial interpretation.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Proenza, Abraham Jacob · State v. Colyandro

3. “In addition, the majority’s rationale for overruling [this Court’s overruled precedent] distorts this Court's precedent and authority. There are several problems with the majority's analysis. First, longstanding case law says explicitly that if the legislature does not amend a statute after it has been judicially construed, we assume that the legislature approved the judicial construction. (Citations omitted). Contrary to that long-established precedent, the majority contends that "legislative inaction does not necessarily equate to legislative approval." Whether or not that is true, the assertion is made without reference to any authority. Second, not only did the legislature not "immediately amend” [the applicable statute] in response to [this Court's overruled precedent], it has not, to this day, made any changes to it. Third, if this Court can overrule precedent simply by saying that it can, what has become of stare decisis? Are we now to decide issues without even considering the collected wisdom of the past? Finally, how are we to know when legislative inaction following a judicial interpretation of a statute is agreement with the interpretation and when it is the legislature sitting back and waiting for this Court to recognize that it has made an error and remedy that error on its own?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Roberts v. State