Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2002 ND 147 - Abel v. Allen

Abel v. Allen’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
August 2025
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently August 2025

9 state decisions

40200220102020decided

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 Dahlberg v. LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERV. OF ND · Huber v. Oliver County · Wells v. First American Bank West · Jones v. Barnett · AMERICAN STATE BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF WILLISTON v. Sorenson

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

  1. “Summary judgment is a procedural device for promptly and expeditiously disposing of an action without a trial if either party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and no dispute exists as to either the material facts or the reasonable inferences to be drawn from undisputed facts, or resolving the factual disputes will not alter the result. Issues of fact may become questions of law if reasonable persons could reach only one conclusion from the facts. Summary judgment is appropriate against parties who fail to establish the existence of a factual dispute on an essential element of their claim and on which they will bear the burden of proof at trial.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “28-01-18. Actions having two-year limitations. The following actions must be commenced within two years after the claim for relief has accrued: [[Image here]] 3. An action for the recovery of damages resulting from malpractice; provided, however, that the limitation of an action against a physician or licensed hospital will not be extended beyond six years of the act or omission of alleged malpractice by a non-discovery thereof unless discovery was prevented by the fraudulent conduct of the physician or licensed hospital.”
    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.