State v. Fritz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Although some courts, absent a specific statutory provision or statutory ambiguity, have held that termination of parental rights ends financial obligations as well, it is our opinion that under current Rhode Island statutes, parental financial support continues until a child has been emancipated, adopted, reaches the age of majority, or until the obligation has been duly terminated after the Family Court has held a hearing and issued an order stating its findings. "In some jurisdictions, the term `parental rights' has been interpreted as incorporating all the rights of the parental relationship, including not only those rights that flow to the parent, but also those, such as the right to financial support, that flow to the child. See, e.g., County of Ventura v. Gonzales, 88 Cal. App.4th 1120 , 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 461, 464 (2001) (citing State Welfare Division, Department of Human Resources v. Vine, 99 Nev. 278 , 662 P.2d 295, 298 (1983)). The plain language of Rhode Island's termination of parental rights statute, § 15-7-7, addresses only the `legal rights of the parent to the child' and not the reciprocal rights of the child with respect to the parent. Because this Court consistently has declined `"[to] interpret a statute to include a matter omitted unless the clear purpose of the legislation would fail without the implication,"' Wehr, Inc. v. Truex, 700 A.2d 1085, 1088 (R.I.1997) (per curiam) (quoting State v. Feng, 421 A.2d 1258, 1264 (R.I.1980)), we interpret the General A”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 39 So. 3d 1117 - Ex Parte Mdc · 39 So. 3d 1105 - Mdc v. Kd

2. “When addressing a motion to dismiss a criminal information, a [Superior Court] justice is required to examine the information and any attached exhibits to determine whether the state has satisfied its burden to establish probable cause to believe that the offense charged was committed and that the defendant committed it.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Martini

3. “decision to grant a criminal defendant's motion to dismiss by examining whether the justice's findings are supported by the evidence or whether, in making those findings, the justice misconceived or overlooked material evidence.”

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