Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 200 NW2D 387 - State v. Harm

State v. Harm’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
November 2005
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently November 2005

6 state decisions

301972198019902000decided

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 Bell v. Burson · Thompson v. Thompson · Sueppel v. Eads · Helland v. Jones · Kosmatka v. Safety Responsibility Division of the North Dakota State Highway Department

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

  1. “"It has been said that the terms `habitual,' `reckless,' and `negligent' are well known to all and the suspending or revoking officials have thereby a definite and tangible standard to guide them in their determination." Id. at 392.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Permission to operate a motor vehicle upon the public highways is not a civil right nor is the license to do so a contract or property right in a constitutional sense but, rather, it is a mere license or privilege. Thompson v. Thompson, 78 N.W.2d 395 (N.D.1956). Although the privilege might be a valuable one (Helland v. Jones, 76 N.D. 511 , 37 N.W.2d 513, 514 (1949)), nevertheless the license to drive may be revoked pursuant to the procedure and for violations of the conditions prescribed by the statute under which it was issued. Thompson v. Thompson, supra.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “and upon his request shall afford him an opportunity for a hearing as early as practical within not to exceed twenty days ...”
    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.