Rath v. Sholty’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently December 2006 · most notably State v. Frank (1980), State v. Kaufman (1972)
29 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 Windus v. Great Plains Gas · Windus v. Great Plains Gas · Hobbs v. Martin Marietta Company · Cogley v. Hy Vee Food Stores, Inc. · Alsco Iowa, Inc. v. Jackson
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The trial court may, in its discretion, and shall upon a showing that such dismissal was the result of oversight, mistake or other reasonable cause, reinstate the action or actions so dismissed. Application for such reinstatement, setting forth the grounds therefor, shall be filed within six months from the date of dismissal.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Defining “oversight,” “mistake” or “other reasonable cause” in a legal sense is more difficult. In this case we need only be concerned with the first of these words. “Oversight” has been defined as “something overlooked;” an “omission or error due to inadvertence.” “Inadvertence” in turn is defined as “lack of care or attentiveness.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged 1610, 1139 (14th ed. 1966). Oversight is similar to excusable neglect. Negatively, it is not gross neglect or willful pro-crastication as those terms are employed in Hobbs v. Martin Marietta Company, 257 Iowa 124 , 131 N.W.2d 772 (1964). This court has been liberal in affirming determinations of default-voiding mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect in rule 236 appeals.... The same policy shall be followed, within the scope of our permissible review, with respect to reinstatement under the rule 215.1 amendment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“not de novo, as in equity, but as in a law proceeding. It follows that trial court’s findings of fact and inferences inherent therein are binding upon this court if supported by substantial evidence. Whether the facts and inferences found constitute “inadvertence,” “mistake” or “other reasonable cause” is not a factual but a legal question on review. We have held trial court’s interpretation of its findings becomes a question of law which is not conclusive on appeal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. O'BRIEN v. Mullapudi
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.