State v. Hager’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77B (§ 2 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77R (§ 18 of the Securities Act of 1933)
Relies on Lander v. Hartford Life & Annuity Insurance · United States v. Rachal · Brown v. Earthboard Sports USA, Inc. · Amerada Hess Corp. v. State Ex Rel. Tax Commissioner · State Ex Rel. Stenehjem v. FreeEats.com, Inc.
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which is fully renewable on appeal. Ackre v. Chapman & Chapman, P.C., 2010 ND 167, ¶ 10 , 788 N.W.2d 344 . Our primary objective in interpreting a statute is to determine the legislature’s intent. Id. We first look to the language of the statute to ascertain the legislature’s intent. Ward v. Bullis, 2008 ND 80, ¶ 18 , 748 N.W.2d 397 . We give words their plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning, unless a word is specifically defined. N.D.C.C. § 1-02-02; see also Ward, at ¶ 18. If the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, “the letter of [the statute] is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.” N.D.C.C. § 1-02-05.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Charbonneau
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.