Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 1997 SD 116 - Himrich v. Carpenter

Himrich v. Carpenter’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
2
states following
January 2015
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently January 2015

2 federal appellate · 21 state decisions

140199720002010decided

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 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Ritter v. Mutual Life Ins Co of New York · Gregory v. City of Rogers · Moody v. St. Charles County · Josephson v. Planning Board

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

  1. “In reviewing a grant or a denial of summary judgment under SDCL 15-6-56(c), we must determine whether the moving party demonstrated the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and showed entitlement to judgment on the merits as a matter of law. The evidence must be viewed most favorably to the nonmoving party and reasonable doubts should be resolved against the moving party. The nonmoving party, however, must present specific facts showing that a genuine, material issue for trial exists. Our task on appeal is to determine only whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the law was correctly applied. If there exists any basis which supports the ruling of the trial court, affirmance of a summary judgment is proper.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““When parties seek equity in the court, they must do equity, which includes entering the court with clean hands. A [party] who does not come into equity with clean hands is not entitled to any relief herein, but should be left in the position in which the court finds him.” ... The maxim that “he who comes into equity must come with clean hands,” is most often utilized “where granting affirmative equitable relief would run contrary to public policy or lend the court’s aid to fraudulent, illegal or unconscionable conduct.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[e]quity and natural justice invalidate contracts which, by their nature, threatened to `weaken public confidence in the integrity of the public service.'”
    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.