Riverside Development Co. v. Ritchie’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
118 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 121 later decisions — most recently February 2023 · most notably Black Canyon Racquetball Club, Inc. v. Idaho First National Bank (1991), Edwards v. Conchemco, Inc. (1986)
118 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Lindsey v. Normet · Bricklayers, Masons & Plasterers International Union of America, Local Union No. 15 v. Stuart Plastering Co. · Moss v. Mid-American Fire & Marine Insurance · Angleton v. Angleton · Casey v. Highlands Insurance
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 121 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“where the evidentiary facts are not disputed and the trial court rather than a jury will be the trier of fact, summary judgment is appropriate, despite the possibility of conflicting inferences because the court alone will be responsible for resolving the conflict between those inferences.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“[w]here, as in this case, both parties file motions for summary judgment relying on the same facts, issues, and theories, the parties essentially stipulate that there is no genuine issue of material fact which would preclude the district court form entering summary judgment. As the trier of fact, the district court is free to arrive at the most probable inferences based upon the evidence before it and grant summary judgment, despite the possibility of conflicting inferences. As the trier of fact, the district court is responsible for resolving the possible conflict between the inferences.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[Wjaiver is primarily a question of intent, and we believe the better policy is to judge each situation on a case by case basis. In regard to similar questions involving the theory of equitable estoppel, 5 this Court has rejected the adoption of rigid standards, relying rather on a case by case analysis, City of Nampa v. Swayne, 97 Idaho 530, 534 , 547 P.2d 1135, 1139 (1976); Dalton Highway Dist. of Kootenai County v. Sowder, 88 Idaho 556, 562 , 401 P.2d 813, 815-16 (1965), and we think that policy is prudent here. 5 Waiver arising out of conduct is in the nature of estoppel. Idaho Bank of Commerce v. Chastain, 86 Idaho 146, 154 , 383 P.2d 849, 853-84 (1963).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.