State of Vermont v. David Rollins

1982-03-25 · Supreme Court of Vermont · United States

read the judgment

3What it rests on

7Relied on since

0Departed from

Relied on since

The judgments that cite this one. This is the answer that tells you the case is still alive.

19831 judgments19851 judgments19862 judgments19892 judgments19921 judgments

7 judgments have relied on it, across 1983–1992

first 1983 · last 1992 · busiest 1986 (2 judgments)

1992-03-19Haas v. StateSupreme Court of Florida 1989-12-11STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GARY DAVID WETZEL, Defendant-AppellantHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals 1989-06-06Kenneth Palestine Davis v. Commonwealth of VirginiaCourt of Appeals of Virginia 1986-10-09COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Brian SLINGERLAND, AppellantSupreme Court of Pennsylvania 1986-05-01STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Mary Lou KNOLL, Defendant-AppellantIdaho Court of Appeals 1985-08-30State of Vermont v. Gregory J. DumontSupreme Court of Vermont 1983-12-15Fuenning v. SUPER. CT. IN AND FOR CTY. OF MARICOPAArizona Supreme Court

What it rests on

1981-07-09Marcia K. DENISON, Petitioner, v. ANCHORAGE, a Municipal Corporation, RespondentCourt of Appeals of Alaska 1979-04-03STATE OF OREGON, Respondent v. CHESTER CLARK, PetitionerOregon Supreme Court 1973-02-26STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. THOMAS JAMES SWARENGIN (No. 72-1665), AppellantCourt of Appeals of Oregon

11 point outside the corpus. Read from the text, but no judgment held here answers to them. They are counted rather than hidden: this corpus is a slice, not the law.

Departed from

No judgment recorded a departure from this one.

Departure is not detected yet, and the gap is deliberate. Searching for the words the Court might use was measured on 1,019 judgments: "depart from" appears 100 times and most often means departing from the facts found by a domestic court; "overruled" appears 44 times, usually about a domestic judgment; "abandon" appears 123 times, most often as abandoned firearms. Tightened to require the Court itself as the subject, precision was still around 40%, the rest being a dissenting judge complaining, or a national supreme court departing from its own case-law. Telling a lawyer an authority is dead when it is alive is worse than saying nothing, so nothing is what this says until each candidate can be judged properly.

not characterised

Most citations carry no word at all. The Court does not always say what it is doing when it cites one of its own judgments, and where it stayed silent nothing is inferred here.