State v. Riveira’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[D]ue respect must be accorded the effect of words used by the legislature, even if their true significance is not imparted in legislative committee reports. . . . When faced with interpreting statutes, the courts must be vigilant of the consequences statutes work, whether declared by the legislature or not. It is how the statute would be read by the layperson which guides our construction in criminal cases.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Kalama · State v. Savitz

2. “This chapter creates within this State a system of family courts.... The court shall conduct all proceedings to the end that no adjudication by the court of the status of any child under this chapter shall be deemed a conviction; no such adjudication shall impose any civil disability ordinarily resulting from conviction; no child shall be found guilty or be deemed a criminal by reason of such adjudication; no child shall be charged with crime or be convicted in any court except as otherwise provided in this chapter; and all children found responsible for offenses shall receive dispositions that provide incentive for reform or deterrence from further misconduct, or both.... Any evidence given in any case under section 571-11 shall not in any civil, criminal, or other cause in any court be lawful or proper evidence against the child for any purpose whatever except in subsequent cases involving the same child under section 571-11.”

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

3. “(5) In the case of multiple convictions for driving without a valid motor vehicle insurance policy within a five-year period from any prior offense, the court, in addition to any other penalty, shall impose the following penalties: (A) Imprisonment of not more than thirty days; (B) Suspension or revocation of the motor vehicle registration plates of the vehicle involved; (C) Impoundment, or impoundment and sale, of the motor vehicle for the costs of storage and other charges incident to seizure of the vehicle, or any other cost involved pursuant to section 431:100-301; or (D) Any combination of those penalties[.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Godines.