Byrd v. Bennett’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
May 1983
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Reaves v. Reinbold · Engebretson v. Putnam · Anaconda Co. v. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In recent opinions, this Court explained the purpose of summary judgment under Rule 56, M.R.Civ.P., and we outlined the proper procedure for entry of summary judgment. See, Anaconda Co. v. General Acc. Fire & Life (1980), [ 187 Mont. 447 ,] 616 P.2d 363 , 37 St.Rep. 1589; Reaves v. Reinbold (1980) [ 189 Mont. 284 ,] 615 P.2d 896 , 37 St.Rep. 1500 . Under Rule 56(c), M.R.Civ.P., summary judgment shall be entered if ‘... the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file [together with the affidavits if any] 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 purpose of summary judgment is to encourage economy through the elimination of unnecessary trial, delay and expense, a but the procedure is never to be a substitute for a trial if a material factual controversy exists. Engebretson v. Putnam (1977), 174 Mont. 409 , 571 P.2d 368 . In a summary judgment proceeding, the formal issues presented by the pleadings are not controlling. The question to be decided in a motion for summary judgment is whether there exists a genuine dispute over material facts. The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing the complete absence of material factual questions. The proof proffered by the movant is closely scrutinized. The party opposing the motion may block summary judgment by offering proof that a dispute exists regarding facts material to the claim for relief”
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.