Gluscic v. Avera St. Luke's’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently November 2025
14 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 Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Barbour · Arkadelphia Milling Co v. St Louis Southwestern Ry Co Hasty · Butler v. Eaton · British Queen Mining Co. v. Baker Silver Mining Co. · Northwestern Fuel Co. v. Brock
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This Court formerly reviewed documentary evidence and deposition testimony under the de novo standard. However, SDCL 15-6-52(a), [as amended in 2000], specifically provides that “findings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, may not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Focusing on the relevant rules of appellate procedure, it is well-established that a “judgment reversed by a higher court is ‘without any validity, force or effect, and ought never to have existed.’ ”... “[t]o ‘reverse’ a judgment means to ‘overthrow, vacate, set aside, make void, annul, repeal, or revoke it.’ ” [[Image here]] “The mandate of this court ordering a reversal of a judgment without other direction nullifies the judgment, findings of facts, and conclusions of law, and leaves the case standing as if no judgment or decree had ever been entered.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““[U]pon the reversal of a judgment, the law raises an obligation on the part of the party who received benefits from its enforcement to restore those benefits to the adverse party.” This authority makes clear that one who executes on a judgment during the pendency of an appeal of the judgment does so at his own risk. If [that party] obtains benefits from the execution and the judgment is subsequently reversed, those benefits must then be restored to the adverse party.”
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.