Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 56 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from State v. S.R..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | State v. S.R. Anchor | green | “in determining legislative intent, the court first looks to the language in the statute and the purpose to be accomplished.” | 13 |
| 2 | State v. S.R. | green | “in construing a statute, a court's paramount concern is the legislative intent in enacting the statute.” | 11 |
| 3 | Jenkins v. Keller | green | “courts of common pleas do not have inherent jurisdiction in workmen's compensation cases but only such jurisdiction as is conferred on them under the provisions of the workmen's compensation act.” | 7 |
| 4 | Cline v. Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles | green | “however, where a statute is found to be subject to various interpretations, a court called upon to interpret its provisions may invoke rules of statutory construction in order to arrive at legislative intent.” | 7 |
| 5 | Cline v. Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles | green | “where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no need to apply rules of statutory interpretation.” | 6 |
| 6 | State ex rel. Republic Steel Corp. v. Quinn | neutral | “the singular includes the plural, and the plural includes the singular.” | 5 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.