State v. Lobendahn’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Keliipuleole v. Wilson (1997), State v. Mangum (2007)
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 United States v. Liles · State v. Ui · 173 Cal. App. 3d 493 - People v. Harty · State v. Herrera · Clark v. State
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.
“A rational, sensible and practicable interpretation [of a statute] is preferred to one which is unreasonable or impracticable”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the legislature did not intend to encourage persons to flaunt the law while an appeal is pending.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The interpretation of a statute is a question of law reviewable de novo. Furthermore, our statutory construction is guided by established rules: When construing a statute, our foremost obligation is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature, which is to be obtained primarily from the language contained in the statute itself. And we must read statutory language in the context of the entire statute and construe it in a manner consistent with its purpose. When there is doubt, doubleness of meaning, or indistinctiveness or uncertainty of an expression used in a statute, an ambiguity exists. In construing an ambiguous statute, the meaning of the ambiguous words may be sought by examining the context, with which the ambiguous words, phrases, and sentences may be compared, in order to ascertain their true meaning. Moreover, the courts may resort to extrinsic aids in determining legislative intent. One avenue is the use of legislative history as an interpretive tool. This court may also consider the reason and spirit of the law, and the cause which induced the legislature to enact it[,] to discover its true meaning. Laws in pari materia, or upon the same subject matter, shall be construed with reference to each other. What is clear in one statute may be called upon in aid to explain what is doubtful in another.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Vierra
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.