Barich v. Ottenstror’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently October 2003 · most notably Gates v. Life of Montana Insurance (1982), Simmons v. Jenkins (1988)
36 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 Brandenburger v. Toyota Motor Sales, U. S. A., Inc. · Harland v. Anderson · Jakubowski v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing · Kapp v. Sullivan Chevrolet Co. · Franks v. National Dairy Products Corp.
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In light of Rule 56, Montana Rules of Civil Procedure, the party opposing a motion for summary judgment on a record which reveals no issue of material fact must present facts of a substantial nature. Conclusory or speculative statements are insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘The proof required of a plaintiff seeking to recover for injuries from an unsafe product is very largely the same, whether his cause of action rests upon negligence, warranty, or strict liability in tort. “ ‘On any of the three bases of liability, the plaintiff has the initial burden of establishing three things. The first is that he has been injured by the product. * * * The second is that the injury occurred because the product was defective, unreasonably unsafe. * * * The third is that the defect existed when the product left the hands of the particular defendant.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Rule 56(c), M.R.Civ.P., provides that summary judgment is proper if: “ ‘* * * the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file show that there is no genuine issue as to ■any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’ “The burden of establishing the absence of any issue of material fact is on the moving party. * * * But where the record discloses no genuine issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must present substantial evidence raising such issue. [Citing cases]”.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.