Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2002 MT 233 - Hiebert v. Cascade County

Hiebert v. Cascade County’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
1
states following
March 2023
most recently cited

54 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Roman Catholic Church (2013), Rosenthal v. County of Madison (2007)

54 state decisions

340200220102020decided

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

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Busta Ex Rel. Busta v. Columbus Hospital Corp. · United States v. Marashi · 24 Wash. App. 517 - In Re the Welfare of Adams · Vernon Kills on Top v. State

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

  1. “If the moving party satisfies its burden of proof, the non-moving party must provide “material and substantial evidence, rather than mere conclusory or speculative statements, to raise a genuine issue of material fact.” Stuart v. First Sec. Bank, 2000 MT 309, ¶ 16 , 302 Mont. 431, ¶ 16 , 15 P.3d 1198, ¶ 16 . “[T]he non-moving party must set forth specific facts and cannot simply rely upon their pleadings, nor upon speculative, fanciful, or conclusory statements.” Thomas v. Hale (1990), 246 Mont. 64, 67 , 802 P.2d 1255,1257 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]here are three components of a true Brady violation: The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and prejudice must have ensued.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.