Brant v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[The supreme court's statement in Guin v. Ha that, when a court is required to decide a question of law, the court's "duty is to adopt the rule of law that is most persuasive in light of precedent, policy, and reason" ... is only partially true. The statement applies in full measure when a court must declare the common law. But when a court construes a statute, the court's task is to ascertain and implement the intent of the legislature. In accomplishing this task, the court's primary point of reference is the wording of the statute. When that wording is unclear or ambiguous, a court may be assisted by "precedent, policy, and reason"-as well as by the statute's legislative history and the recognized rules of statutory construction. But a court exceeds its authority if it interprets statutes as it believes the legislature should have meant them.”

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

2. “The legislature frequently defines crimes in our eriminal code on the basis of a defendant's criminal history. In some crimes, the legislature defines the crime to require not only that the defendant has been both "convicted," but that the defendant has been "convicted and sentenced." [Footnote citing the second-and third-degree theft statutes.] Thus, the legislature, in at least those erimes just noted, regarded a defendant's status as "sentenced" as a separate fact to be proven along with the defendant's status of "convicted."”

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

3. “[Footnote citing the second-and third-degree theft statutes.] Thus, the legislature, in at least those erimes just noted, regarded a defendant's status as”

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