State v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
June 2015
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3583
Relies on Moody v. Daggett · Harris v. Commissioner of Correction · State v. Tracy · 20 Cal. 3d 639 - People v. Sewell · United States v. Garrett
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 2 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 reviewable on appeal. The primary objective in interpreting a statute is to determine the legislature’s intent, and we look at the language of the statute first to determine intent. Words in a statute are given their plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning, unless they are defined by statute or unless a contrary intention plainly appears. N.D.C.C. § 1-02-02. The letter of a statute cannot be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit when the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous. N.D.C.C. § 1-02-05. A statute is ambiguous if it is susceptible to different, rational meanings. Statutes ai’e construed as a whole and are harmonized to give meaning to related provisions.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.