Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 145 Idaho 65 - Straub v. Smith

Straub v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
2
states following
February 2025
most recently cited

1 district · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently February 2025

1 district · 18 state decisions

170200720102020decided

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 Quick v. Crane · Barrios v. California Interscholastic Federation · Eighteen Mile Ranch, LLC v. Nord Excavating & Paving, Inc. · Sun Valley Potato Growers, Inc. v. Texas Refinery Corp. · Opportunity, L.L.C. v. Ossewarde

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

  1. “Th[is] Court reviews an order denying a motion to alter or amend [a] judgment for abuse of discretion. Pursuant to I.R.C.P. 59(e), a district court can correct legal and factual errors occurring in proceedings before it.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[I.R.C.P. 41(a)(2) ] requires all other dismissals to be upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. This provision is discretionary with the trial court both as to whether a dismissal should be allowed, as well as to the terms and conditions to be imposed, if allowed. The purpose of the court’s discretionary authority under this rule is to insure that the court pays due regard to the interests of both the plaintiff and defendant; dismissal of the plaintiffs action must not unfairly jeopardize the defendant’s interests.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “However, a party may only make a motion to reconsider interlocutory order or orders entered after the entry of final judgment. I.R.C.P. 11(a)(2). The dismissal was a final judgment and, thus, the Smith’s motion to reconsider should be treated as a motion to modify or amend the order of dismissal.”
    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.