Martinmaas v. Engelmann’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
3 district · 129 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 133 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably Discover Bank v. Stanley (2008), Peterson, Ex Rel. Peterson v. Burns (2001)
3 district · 129 state decisions
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 McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood · United New York & New Jersey Sandy Hook Pilots Ass'n v. Halecki · Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Winckler & Smith Citrus Products Co. · State ex rel. Markley v. Baldwin · Wilmington Star Mining Company v. Minnie Fulton
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 133 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The purpose of statutory construction is to discover the true intention of the law which is to be ascertained primarily from the language expressed in the statute. The intent of a statute is determined from what the legislature said, rather than what the courts think it should have said, and the court must confine itself to the language used. Words and phrases in a statute must be given their plain meaning and effect. When the language in a statute is clear, certain and unambiguous, there is no reason for construction, and the Court’s only function is to declare the meaning of the statute as clearly expressed.”
25 later decisions quote this exact passage“[w]hen actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court ... to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Testimony of a witness or documentary evidence of any kind on cancellation, revocation, suspension, or limitation proceedings are not subject to discovery or disclosure under chapter 15-6 or any other provision of law, and are not admissible as evidence in any action of any kind in any court or arbitration forum, except as hereinafter provided. No person in attendance at any hearing of the Board of Medical and Osteopathic Examiners considering cancellation, revocation, suspension, or limitation of a license issued by it may be required to testify as to what transpired at such meeting. The prohibition relating to discovery of evidence does not apply to deny a physician access to or use of information upon which a decision regarding his staff privileges was based. The prohibition relating to discovery of evidence does not apply to any person or his counsel in the defense of an action against his access to the materials covered under this section.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mousseau v. Schwartz
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.