Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 155 IDAHO 49 - McDavid v. Kiroglu

McDavid v. Kiroglu’s Empirical Analysis

2013

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
May 2018
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Karlson v. Harris · Knight Ins., Inc. v. Knight · Berg v. Kendall · Telford v. Mart Produce, Inc. · Wright v. Wright

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

  1. “Rule 11(b)(3) provides a readily identifiable, straightforward requirement for counsel and the courts to satisfy. Compliance with the rule obviates any need for judges to weigh conflicting evidence of actual notice or to speculate concerning a litigant's state of mind. An entitlement to relief produces consistent, predictable results, unaffected by the varying philosophies that underlie exercises of discretion by individual judges.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Judgments taken against a party whose attorney withdrew without strict compliance with the rule are void and must be set aside as a matter of law.”
    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.