307:(c) only those parts of the concurring opinions which overlap and arrive at the same result. For example, if one follows the first interpretation, then the holding in the case should be viewed as the narrowest rationale supported by all of the concurring opinions read together as though it were a single majority opinion, and where there is a conflict, the opinion based on the narrowest ground governs. Followers of the second rationale would find the concurring opinion offering the narrowest analysis to be the holding. Whereas, under the third interpretation, only the rationale(s) common to all concurring opinions which arrive at the same result(s) (and to the exclusion of all other rationales) is considered the holding.
246:
25:
334:
s amorphous 'flexible standard' into something resembling an administrable rule". Regardless of the approach used, a reading of the opinions together results in a holding that "neutral, nondiscriminatory regulation of voting procedure" is constitutional so long as the burden imposed by the regulation
306:
has raised the following schools of thought regarding the appropriate basis for determining the holding in such fractured cases: (a) the narrowest analysis essential to the result derived from a combination of all concurring opinions, (b) the concurring opinion offering the narrowest rationale, or
291:
explained how the holding of a case should be viewed where there is no majority supporting the rationale of any opinion: "When a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five
Justices, the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position
232:
or opinions which received the most support among those opinions which supported the plurality decision. The plurality opinion did not receive the support of more than half the justices, but still received more support than any other opinion, excluding those justices dissenting from the holding of
677:
316:, 553 U.S. 181 (2008). In considering whether Indiana's voter identification law passed constitutional muster, three justices believed the proper analysis was to apply the balancing approach laid down in
422:
Berry, Melissa M.; Kochan, Donald J.; Parlow, Matthew J. (2008). "Much ado about pluralities: Pride and precedent amidst the cacophony of concurrences, and re-percolation after
1315:
200:
312:
1275:
383:(1976) "the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds"
1159:
Rivero, Albert H.; Key, Ellen M.; Segal, Jeffrey A. (2022-07-03). "Invisible constitutions: Concurring opinions and plurality judgments under
1385:
295:
That requires lower courts to look at all opinions to determine which is the most narrow compared to others. This opinion will be called the
42:
288:
1192:
Spritzer, Ralph S. (1988). "Multiple issue cases and multi member courts: Observations on decision making by discordant minorities".
108:
89:
193:
61:
801:
Eber, Michael L. (2008). "When the dissent creates the law: Cross-cutting majorities and the prediction model of precedent".
46:
1521:
68:
958:
Marceau, Justin F. (2009). "Lifting the Haze of Baze: Lethal injection, the Eighth
Amendment, and plurality opinions".
1360:
75:
1629:
186:
520:
rule misses the mark: How the
Seventh Circuit correctly determined the precedential effect of the Supreme Court's
35:
931:
1243:
1560:
823:
602:
479:
450:
57:
572:
Corley, Pamela C. (2009). "Uncertain precedent: Circuit court responses to
Supreme Court plurality opinions".
1322:
Sung, Christopher. (2014). How should lower courts interpret plurality decisions?: Exploring options through
318:
283:
515:
1309:
646:"Agencies interpreting courts interpreting statutes: The deference conundrum of a divided Supreme Court"
1086:
1361:"When the court divides: Reconsidering the precedential value of Supreme Court plurality decisions"
163:
1592:
1298:
1033:
824:"The modern problem of Supreme Court plurality decision: Interpretation in historical perspective"
1493:
1201:
1147:
1073:
721:
344:
158:
153:
143:
901:
L'Heureux-Dube, Claire (1990). "The length and plurality of
Supreme Court of Canada decisions".
375:
82:
1576:
1572:
1544:
1540:
1501:
1401:
1397:
1294:
1290:
1259:
1255:
1180:
996:
992:
971:
967:
918:
814:
810:
786:
782:
661:
657:
629:
625:
589:
440:
435:
148:
129:
1505:
1433:
1172:
1114:
910:
693:
682:
rule and plurality precedent: Affirmances by evenly divided courts and theories of holdings"
617:
581:
379:
229:
138:
645:
1416:
Varon, Jennifer R. (2013). "A powerless plurality: The Second
Circuit Court of Appeals in
549:"Piecing together precedent: Fragmented decisions from the Washington State Supreme Court"
1214:
877:
766:
980:
480:"Plurality decisions in the Supreme Court of the United States: A reexamination of the
218:
1481:
603:"Extreme Dissensus: Explaining Plurality Decisions on the United States Supreme Court"
548:
310:
A good example of a plurality opinion can be found in the
Supreme Court's decision in
245:
1623:
713:
124:
1064:
Novak, Linda (1980). "The precedential value of
Supreme Court plurality decisions".
849:"Relatively unguided: Examining the precedential value of the plurality decision in
741:
1448:
1331:
848:
621:
1176:
292:
taken by those
Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds."
451:"Plurality and precedence: Judicial reasoning, lower courts, and the meaning of
24:
1184:
922:
593:
585:
322:, 460 U.S. 780 (1983). Three other justices agreed with the outcome of the
1034:"Plurality decisions, implicit consensuses, and the fifth-vote rule under
697:
601:
Corley, Pamela. C.; Sommer, Udi; Steigerwalt, Amy; Ward, Artemus (2010).
171:
1497:
1438:
1205:
1151:
1449:"A problematic plurality precedent: Why the Supreme Court should leave
1130:
rule — Fourth
Circuit declines to apply Justice White's concurrence in
1077:
981:"Plurality decisions: Upward flowing precedent and acoustic separation"
725:
221:
in which no opinion received the support of a majority of the judges.
914:
1118:
393:
Pedcor Mgmt. Co. Welfare Benefit Plan v. Nations Pers. of Tex., Inc.
326:
approach, but believed the proper analysis was to apply the rule in
1015:
rule in light of a plurality prone Supreme Court: A case study of
1561:"Plurality decisions and the ambiguity of precedential authority"
932:"Plurality rule: Concurring opinions and a divided Supreme Court"
878:"Legitimacy model for the interpretation of plurality decisions"
240:
18:
714:"Juridical cripples: Plurality opinions in the supreme court"
376:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/153/case.html
851:
Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Co.
1017:
National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius
1336:
and the uncertain future of federal wetlands protection"
257:
1482:"Concurring in part & concurring in the confusion"
1390:
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy
1386:"The role of dissents in the formation of precedent"
299:, and can be a mere concurrence, not the plurality.
1420:correctly determined that the plurality opinion in
1105:"Plurality decisions and judicial decisionmaking".
49:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
1526:: Plurality decisions and precedential constraint"
828:Washington University Journal of Law & Policy
1274:Stras, David R.; Spriggs, James F, II (2011).
1244:"Nonmajority opinions and biconditional rules"
1021:Boston University Public Interest Law Journal
853:, and its effects on class action litigation"
712:Davis, John F.; Reynolds, William L. (1974).
428:Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law
194:
8:
1314:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
746:supports the overruling of the unworkable
201:
187:
120:
1593:"Plurality decisions and prior precedent"
1437:
439:
109:Learn how and when to remove this message
750:doctrine and a change in court practice"
742:"Exodus from the land of confusion: Why
313:Crawford v. Marion County Election Board
356:
123:
16:Court decision with no majority opinion
1340:Public Land & Resources Law Review
1307:
1091:Jotwell: The Journal of Things We Like
395:, 343 F.3d 355, 358-59 (5th Cir. 2003)
1087:"Making sense of plurality decisions"
1085:Pfander, James E. (2 November 2015).
1011:McCauley, Sean (2017). "Revising the
407:, 376 F.3d 163, 175-76 (3d Cir. 2004)
330:, 504 U.S. 428 (1992), which "forged
7:
47:adding citations to reliable sources
1219:in the canon of constitutional law"
289:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
1326:. Calif. L. Rev. Circuit, 5, 249.
1138:, 900 F.3d 139 (4th Cir. 2018)".
1276:"Explaining plurality decisions"
1242:Steinman, Adam (23 March 2018).
857:Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
754:St. Louis University Law Journal
459:Washington University Law Review
244:
23:
34:needs additional citations for
1032:Neuenkirchen, John P. (2013).
622:10.1080/0098261X.2010.10767964
453:United States v. Winstar Corp.
1:
1600:The Federal Courts Law Review
1177:10.1080/0098261X.2022.2095943
767:"Lethal injection chaos post-
495:Suffolk University Law Review
1213:Stearns, Maxwell L. (2000).
1113:(5): 1127-1147. March 1981.
822:Hochschild, Adam S. (2000).
676:Curtis, Channing J. (2024).
644:Craig, Robin Kundis (2011).
1424:lacks precedential value".
1359:Thurmon, Mark Alan (1992).
1126:"Plurality decisions — The
979:Marceau, Justin F. (2013).
847:Kazakes, Andrew J. (2011).
287:, 430 U.S. 188 (1977), the
1646:
1591:Williams, Ryan C. (2022).
1559:Williams, Ryan C. (2021).
1520:Williams, Ryan C. (2017).
1248:The Yale Law Journal Forum
930:Ledebur, Linas E. (2008).
765:Denno, Deborah W. (2014).
574:American Politics Research
478:Cacace, Joseph M. (2007).
335:is minimal or not severe.
1223:Constitutional commentary
960:Arizona State Law Journal
514:Catalano, Andrea (2021).
1447:Weins, W. Jesse (2011).
1332:"The plurality paradox:
1215:"The Case for Including
1134:as Binding Precedent. —
586:10.1177/1532673X08319951
486:Rapanos v. United States
449:Bloom, James A. (2008).
1480:West, Sonja R. (2006).
1330:Thigpen, Helen (2007).
1324:United States v. Duvall
744:Hughes v. United States
547:Clark, Rachael (2019).
1384:Varsava, Nina (2019).
1283:Georgetown Law Journal
1217:Marks v. United States
1165:Justice System Journal
1161:Marks v. United States
1146:(3): 1089–1095. 2019.
1036:Marks v. United States
985:Connecticut Law Review
775:Georgetown Law Journal
740:Davisson, Ben (2020).
610:Justice System Journal
528:Seventh Circuit Review
405:Horn v. Thoratec Corp.
366:, 430 U.S. 188 (1977).
364:Marks v. United States
319:Anderson v. Celebrezze
284:Marks v. United States
939:Penn State Law Review
553:Washington Law Review
1426:Creighton Law Review
1422:Williams v. Illinois
876:Kimura, Ken (1992).
698:10.2139/ssrn.4383792
58:"Plurality decision"
43:improve this article
1533:Stanford Law Review
1486:Michigan Law Review
1461:Nebraska Law Review
1136:Manning v. Caldwell
1066:Columbia Law Review
297:controlling opinion
1565:Florida Law Review
1455:Van Orden v. Perry
1140:Harvard Law Review
1107:Harvard Law Review
1045:Widener Law Review
903:Alberta Law Review
882:Cornell Law Review
686:Gonzaga Law Review
345:Plurality (voting)
328:Burdick v. Takushi
256:. You can help by
215:plurality decision
159:Memorandum opinion
154:Concurring opinion
144:Dissenting opinion
1630:Legal terminology
803:Emory Law Journal
650:Emory Law Journal
274:
273:
226:plurality opinion
211:
210:
149:Plurality opinion
130:judicial opinions
119:
118:
111:
93:
1637:
1615:
1613:
1611:
1597:
1587:
1585:
1583:
1555:
1553:
1551:
1530:
1516:
1514:
1512:
1492:(8): 1951–1960.
1476:
1474:
1472:
1443:
1441:
1412:
1410:
1408:
1380:
1378:
1376:
1365:Duke Law Journal
1355:
1353:
1351:
1319:
1313:
1305:
1303:
1297:. Archived from
1280:
1270:
1268:
1266:
1238:
1236:
1234:
1209:
1188:
1155:
1122:
1101:
1099:
1097:
1081:
1060:
1058:
1056:
1042:
1028:
1007:
1005:
1003:
975:
954:
952:
950:
936:
926:
915:10.29173/alr1589
897:
895:
893:
872:
870:
868:
843:
841:
839:
818:
797:
795:
793:
781:(5): 1331–1382.
761:
736:
734:
732:
718:Duke Law Journal
708:
706:
704:
678:"Untwisting the
672:
670:
668:
640:
638:
636:
607:
597:
568:
566:
564:
543:
541:
539:
510:
508:
506:
492:
474:
472:
470:
445:
443:
408:
402:
396:
390:
384:
380:Gregg v. Georgia
373:
367:
361:
269:
266:
248:
241:
230:judicial opinion
203:
196:
189:
139:Majority opinion
121:
114:
107:
103:
100:
94:
92:
51:
27:
19:
1645:
1644:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1609:
1607:
1595:
1590:
1581:
1579:
1558:
1549:
1547:
1528:
1519:
1510:
1508:
1479:
1470:
1468:
1446:
1415:
1406:
1404:
1383:
1374:
1372:
1358:
1349:
1347:
1329:
1306:
1301:
1278:
1273:
1264:
1262:
1241:
1232:
1230:
1212:
1191:
1158:
1132:Powell v. Texas
1125:
1119:10.2307/1340692
1104:
1095:
1093:
1084:
1063:
1054:
1052:
1040:
1031:
1010:
1001:
999:
978:
957:
948:
946:
934:
929:
900:
891:
889:
875:
866:
864:
846:
837:
835:
821:
800:
791:
789:
764:
739:
730:
728:
711:
702:
700:
675:
666:
664:
643:
634:
632:
605:
600:
571:
562:
560:
546:
537:
535:
513:
504:
502:
490:
484:doctrine after
477:
468:
466:
448:
421:
417:
415:Further reading
412:
411:
403:
399:
391:
387:
374:
370:
362:
358:
353:
341:
279:
270:
264:
261:
254:needs expansion
239:
207:
128:
115:
104:
98:
95:
52:
50:
40:
28:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1643:
1641:
1633:
1632:
1622:
1621:
1617:
1616:
1588:
1556:
1539:(3): 795–865.
1517:
1477:
1444:
1413:
1396:(1): 285–343.
1381:
1356:
1327:
1320:
1304:on 2011-09-14.
1271:
1239:
1210:
1200:(2): 139–146.
1189:
1171:(3): 323–338.
1156:
1123:
1102:
1082:
1072:(4): 756–781.
1061:
1029:
1008:
991:(3): 933-994.
976:
955:
927:
909:(3): 581-588.
898:
888:(6): 1593–1627
873:
863:(3): 1049–1071
844:
819:
809:(1): 207–248.
798:
762:
737:
709:
673:
641:
616:(2): 180–200.
598:
569:
559:(4): 1989–2027
544:
511:
475:
465:(6): 1373–1417
446:
434:(2): 299–354.
418:
416:
413:
410:
409:
397:
385:
368:
355:
354:
352:
349:
348:
347:
340:
337:
278:
275:
272:
271:
251:
249:
238:
235:
219:court decision
209:
208:
206:
205:
198:
191:
183:
180:
179:
178:
177:
169:
161:
156:
151:
146:
141:
133:
132:
117:
116:
31:
29:
22:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1642:
1631:
1628:
1627:
1625:
1605:
1601:
1594:
1589:
1578:
1574:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1557:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1534:
1527:
1525:
1522:"Questioning
1518:
1507:
1503:
1499:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1478:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1456:
1452:
1445:
1440:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1419:
1414:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1387:
1382:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1357:
1345:
1341:
1337:
1335:
1334:Rapanos v. US
1328:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1311:
1300:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1277:
1272:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1240:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1218:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1103:
1092:
1088:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1062:
1050:
1046:
1039:
1037:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1009:
998:
994:
990:
986:
982:
977:
973:
969:
965:
961:
956:
944:
940:
933:
928:
924:
920:
916:
912:
908:
904:
899:
887:
883:
879:
874:
862:
858:
854:
852:
845:
833:
829:
825:
820:
816:
812:
808:
804:
799:
788:
784:
780:
776:
772:
770:
763:
760:(1): 227–250.
759:
755:
751:
749:
745:
738:
727:
723:
719:
715:
710:
699:
695:
691:
687:
683:
681:
674:
663:
659:
655:
651:
647:
642:
631:
627:
623:
619:
615:
611:
604:
599:
595:
591:
587:
583:
579:
575:
570:
558:
554:
550:
545:
533:
529:
525:
523:
519:
512:
500:
496:
489:
487:
483:
476:
464:
460:
456:
454:
447:
442:
437:
433:
429:
425:
420:
419:
414:
406:
401:
398:
394:
389:
386:
382:
381:
377:
372:
369:
365:
360:
357:
350:
346:
343:
342:
338:
336:
333:
329:
325:
321:
320:
315:
314:
308:
305:
300:
298:
293:
290:
286:
285:
277:United States
276:
268:
259:
255:
252:This section
250:
247:
243:
242:
236:
234:
231:
227:
222:
220:
216:
204:
199:
197:
192:
190:
185:
184:
182:
181:
176:
174:
170:
168:
166:
162:
160:
157:
155:
152:
150:
147:
145:
142:
140:
137:
136:
135:
134:
131:
126:
122:
113:
110:
102:
99:December 2009
91:
88:
84:
81:
77:
74:
70:
67:
63:
60: –
59:
55:
54:Find sources:
48:
44:
38:
37:
32:This article
30:
26:
21:
20:
1608:. Retrieved
1603:
1599:
1580:. Retrieved
1568:
1564:
1548:. Retrieved
1536:
1532:
1523:
1509:. Retrieved
1489:
1485:
1469:. Retrieved
1467:(3): 830–874
1464:
1460:
1454:
1450:
1439:10504/136807
1429:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1405:. Retrieved
1393:
1389:
1373:. Retrieved
1371:(2): 419–468
1368:
1364:
1348:. Retrieved
1343:
1339:
1333:
1323:
1310:cite journal
1299:the original
1286:
1282:
1263:. Retrieved
1251:
1247:
1231:. Retrieved
1229:(2): 321–339
1226:
1222:
1216:
1197:
1193:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1110:
1106:
1094:. Retrieved
1090:
1069:
1065:
1053:. Retrieved
1048:
1044:
1035:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1000:. Retrieved
988:
984:
963:
959:
947:. Retrieved
945:(3): 899–921
942:
938:
906:
902:
890:. Retrieved
885:
881:
865:. Retrieved
860:
856:
850:
836:. Retrieved
834:(1): 261–287
831:
827:
806:
802:
790:. Retrieved
778:
774:
768:
757:
753:
747:
743:
729:. Retrieved
717:
701:. Retrieved
692:(1): 46–91.
689:
685:
679:
665:. Retrieved
653:
649:
633:. Retrieved
613:
609:
580:(1): 30–49.
577:
573:
561:. Retrieved
556:
552:
536:. Retrieved
531:
527:
522:June Medical
521:
517:
503:. Retrieved
498:
494:
485:
481:
467:. Retrieved
462:
458:
452:
431:
427:
423:
404:
400:
392:
388:
378:
371:
363:
359:
331:
327:
323:
317:
311:
309:
303:
301:
296:
294:
282:
280:
262:
258:adding to it
253:
225:
223:
214:
212:
172:
164:
105:
96:
86:
79:
72:
65:
53:
41:Please help
36:verification
33:
1432:: 193–217.
1418:US v. James
1346:(1): 89–115
1194:Jurimetrics
656:(1): 1–68.
501:(1): 97–133
233:the court.
1610:25 January
1582:25 January
1550:25 January
1511:25 January
1471:25 January
1407:25 January
1375:25 January
1350:25 January
1265:25 January
1233:25 January
1096:25 January
1055:25 January
1002:25 January
949:25 January
892:25 January
867:25 January
838:25 January
792:25 January
731:25 January
703:25 January
667:25 January
635:25 January
563:25 January
538:25 January
524:plurality"
505:25 January
469:25 January
351:References
304:Marks Rule
237:By country
165:Per curiam
69:newspapers
1289:: 10–11.
1185:0098-261X
1051:: 387–440
966:: 159ff.
923:1925-8356
720:: 59–86.
594:1532-673X
534:(1): 1–41
332:Anderson'
1624:Category
1606:: 75–105
1571:: 1–62.
1498:40041453
1206:29762059
1152:26799678
1027:: 257ff.
339:See also
324:Anderson
265:May 2022
173:Seriatim
1577:3816564
1545:2798738
1402:3094016
1295:1562737
1260:3123807
1078:1122139
997:2160000
972:1367203
815:1116306
787:2328407
726:1371753
662:1760591
630:1433742
441:1017992
424:Rapanos
228:is the
175:opinion
167:opinion
83:scholar
1575:
1543:
1506:804325
1504:
1496:
1400:
1293:
1258:
1204:
1183:
1150:
1076:
995:
970:
921:
813:
785:
724:
660:
628:
592:
438:
85:
78:
71:
64:
56:
1596:(PDF)
1529:(PDF)
1524:Marks
1494:JSTOR
1453:over
1451:Marks
1302:(PDF)
1279:(PDF)
1202:JSTOR
1148:JSTOR
1128:Marks
1074:JSTOR
1041:(PDF)
1013:Marks
935:(PDF)
748:Marks
722:JSTOR
680:Marks
606:(PDF)
518:Marks
516:"The
491:(PDF)
482:Marks
217:is a
125:Legal
90:JSTOR
76:books
1612:2024
1584:2024
1573:SSRN
1552:2024
1541:SSRN
1513:2024
1502:SSRN
1473:2024
1409:2024
1398:SSRN
1377:2024
1352:2024
1316:link
1291:SSRN
1267:2024
1256:SSRN
1235:2024
1181:ISSN
1098:2024
1057:2024
1004:2024
993:SSRN
968:SSRN
951:2024
919:ISSN
894:2024
869:2024
840:2024
811:SSRN
794:2024
783:SSRN
769:Baze
733:2024
705:2024
669:2024
658:SSRN
637:2024
626:SSRN
590:ISSN
565:2024
540:2024
507:2024
471:2024
436:SSRN
302:The
127:and
62:news
1490:104
1434:hdl
1252:128
1173:doi
1163:".
1144:132
1115:doi
1019:".
943:113
911:doi
779:102
694:doi
618:doi
582:doi
426:".
281:In
260:.
45:by
1626::
1604:14
1602:.
1598:.
1569:74
1567:.
1563:.
1537:69
1535:.
1531:.
1500:.
1488:.
1484:.
1465:85
1463:.
1459:.
1430:47
1428:.
1394:14
1392:.
1388:.
1369:42
1367:.
1363:.
1344:28
1342:.
1338:.
1312:}}
1308:{{
1287:99
1285:.
1281:.
1254:.
1250:.
1246:.
1227:17
1225:.
1221:.
1198:28
1196:.
1179:.
1169:43
1167:.
1142:.
1111:94
1109:.
1089:.
1070:80
1068:.
1049:19
1047:.
1043:.
1025:26
1023:.
989:45
987:.
983:.
964:41
962:.
941:.
937:.
917:.
907:28
905:.
886:77
884:.
880:.
861:44
859:.
855:.
830:.
826:.
807:58
805:.
777:.
773:.
758:65
756:.
752:.
716:.
690:59
688:.
684:.
654:61
652:.
648:.
624:.
614:31
612:.
608:.
588:.
578:37
576:.
557:94
555:.
551:.
532:17
530:.
526:.
499:41
497:.
493:.
463:85
461:.
457:.
432:15
430:.
224:A
213:A
1614:.
1586:.
1554:.
1515:.
1475:.
1457:"
1442:.
1436::
1411:.
1379:.
1354:.
1318:)
1269:.
1237:.
1208:.
1187:.
1175::
1154:.
1121:.
1117::
1100:.
1080:.
1059:.
1038:"
1006:.
974:.
953:.
925:.
913::
896:.
871:.
842:.
832:4
817:.
796:.
771:"
735:.
707:.
696::
671:.
639:.
620::
596:.
584::
567:.
542:.
509:.
488:"
473:.
455:"
444:.
267:)
263:(
202:e
195:t
188:v
112:)
106:(
101:)
97:(
87:·
80:·
73:·
66:·
39:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
