Peterson v. Hohm’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 22 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When faced with a “ ‘summary judgment motion where the defendant asserts the statute of limitations as a bar to the action and presumptively establishes the defense by showing the case was brought beyond the statutory period, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish the existence of material facts in avoidance of the statute of limitations^]’ ” ... Generally, a statute of limitations question is left for the jury; however, “ ‘[djeciding what constitutes accrual of a cause of action’ ” is a question of law and reviewed de novo. In reviewing under this standard, “[w]e give no.deference to the trial court’s conclusions of law.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. One Star v. Sisters of St. Francis · Lewis v. Sanford Medical Center

2. “[t]he purpose of a statute of limitations is speedy and fair adjudication of the respective rights of the parties.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Dakota Truck Underwriters v. South Dakota Subsequent Injury Fund · Peterson, Ex Rel. Peterson v. Burns

3. “[¶ 2.] In Peterson v. Hohm, 2000 SD 27 , 607 N.W.2d 8 , this Court affirmed a judgment holding that a wrongful death claim brought by Peterson's estate was time-barred because the action was filed in state court after the statute of limitations had run. The pertinent facts of that case follow: On March 22, 1995, Edward Peterson (Edward), who was sixty years old, went to the Tschetter and Hohm Clinic in Huron, South Dakota, complaining of headaches, nausea, vomiting and neck stiffness. He received a CT Scan of his head, was treated by Doctors at the clinic and released. On April 3, 1995, Edward suffered an undiagnosed cerebral hemorrhage that caused him to collapse. He died six days later. At the time of Edward's death, he and Ruby were residents of Beadle County, South Dakota. Shortly after Edward's death, Ruby moved to Fairmont, Minnesota. On March 10, 1997, the Honorable Eugene Martin, Third Circuit, Beadle County, granted Ruby's petition for appointment as special administratrix of Edward's estate. On March 21, 1997, Ruby filed a medical malpractice action on behalf of her husband's estate against Doctors in the United States District Court for South Dakota based upon diversity of citizenship. In her complaint, Ruby alleged that Doctors were negligent in their failure to diagnose and treat Edward for his cerebral aneurysm. Doctor Knute Landreth (Landreth) asserted in his separate answer that no jurisdiction existed. After Doctors filed their answer, the parties undertook d”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Peterson, Ex Rel. Peterson v. Burns