Boren v. Thompson & Associates’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 15 state decisions

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

1. “"Issues not presented in the petition for certio-rari may not be considered by the Supreme Court. Provided, however, if the Court of Civil Appeals did not decide all of the properly preserved and briefed issues, the Supreme Court may-should it vacate the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals-address such undecided mai-ters or it may remand the cause to the Court of Civil Appeals for that Court to address such issues...."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Miller Dollarhide, P.C. v. Tal · Read v. Read

2. “Because a grant of summary judgment is purely a legal issue, this Court's standard of review on appeal is de novo. " Id . ANALYSIS I. THE BONDING STATUTE A. Statutory Text and Purpose ¶10 The statutory language in question is found in 61 O.S.2011 § 2(A),which states in relevant part: Any person to whom there is due any sum for labor, material or repair to machinery or equipment, furnished as stated in Section 1 of this title, the heirs or assigns of such person, may bring an action on the bond for the recovery of the indebtedness, provided that no action shall be brought on the bond after one (1) year from the day on which the last of the labor was performed or material or parts furnished for which the claim is made. This language originates in R.L.1910, §§ 3881 and 3882. At that time, § 3882 provided that: . . . no action shall be brought on said bond after six months from the completion of said public improvements or public buildings. In 1965, the Legislature amended the Bonding Statute, changing the limitations period from six months to one year. In 1968, the Legislature again amended the statute, changing the occurrence that triggered the running of the limitation period from the "completion of the building”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. VANGUARD BUILDERS, INC. v. GRANITE RE, INC.

3. “A. Prior to an award of a contract exceeding Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) for construction or repair of a public building or structure, or improvement to real property, the person that receives the award shall: 1. Furnish a bond with good and sufficient sureties payable to the state in a sum not less that the total sum of the contract; [[Image here]] B. The bond ... shall ensure the proper and prompt completion of the work in accordance with the contract and shall en sure that the contractor shall pay all indebtedness the contractor incurs for the contractor’s subcontractors and all suppliers of labor, material, rental of machinery or equipment, and repair of and parts for equipment the contract requires the contractor to furnish.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2004 OK CIV APP 45 - Hydro Turf, Inc. v. International Fidelity Insurance Co.