Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 1997 SD 75 - Roth v. Roth

Roth v. Roth’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
June 2024
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently June 2024

9 state decisions

501997200020102020decided

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 Wilson v. Great Northern Railway Company · 130 Wis. 2d 523 - In RE MARRIAGE OF LEVY v. Levy · City of Colton v. Schwebach · Ducheneaux v. Miller · Johnson v. Johnson

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

  1. “"A contract is not rendered ambiguous simply because the parties do not agree on its proper construction or their intent upon executing the contract." 17A Am.Jur.2d Contracts § 338 (1991). Accord Johnson v. Johnson, 291 N.W.2d 776, 778-79 (S.D. 1980). Rather, a contract is ambiguous only when "it is capable of more than one meaning when viewed objectively by a reasonably intelligent person who has examined the context of the entire integrated agreement...." 17A Am.Jur.2d [ Contracts ] § 338. See also City of Sioux Falls v. Henry Carlson Co., Inc., 258 N.W.2d 676, 679 (S.D.1977).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “we will not put trial courts in the position of relieving parties of an initial bad bargain[.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Whether contract language is ambiguous is ordinarily a question 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.