Hofeldt v. Mehling’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 4 district · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Dowling Family Partnership v. Midland Farms, LLC (2015), Johnson v. Larson (2010)
3 federal appellate · 4 district · 34 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 Frigillana v. Frigillana · Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Hansen Housing, Inc. · Action Mechanical, Inc. v. Deadwood Historic Preservation Commission · Lewis v. Moorhead · United States of America v. Applied Pharmacy Consultants, Inc.
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A trial court’s findings of fact will not be set aside unless they are clearly erroneous. SDCL 15-6-52(a). We will declare a finding of fact clearly erroneous only if we are definitely and firmly convinced that a mistake has been made. First Nat’l Bank in Brookings v. Kuechenmeister, 2002 SD 9, ¶ 12 , 639 N.W.2d 184, 187 (citing Lewis v. Moorhead, 522 N.W.2d 1, 3 (S.D.1994)). We review the trial court’s conclusions of law de novo. Carstensen Contracting, Inc. v. Mid-Dakota Rural Water System, Inc., 2002 SD 136, ¶ 8, n. 2 , 653 N.W.2d 875 , 877 n. 2.... Our standard of review for cases in equity is abuse of discretion. Kuechenmeister, 2002 SD 9 at ¶ 12 , 639 N.W.2d at 187 (citing Mattson v. Rachetto, 1999 SD 51, ¶ 9 , 591 N.W.2d 814, 817 ). An abuse of discretion occurs only if no judicial mind, in view of the law and the circumstances of the particular case, could reasonably have reached such a conclusion. Mattson, 1999 SD 51, ¶ 9 , 591 N.W.2d at 817 (citations omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lien v. Lien“By its express statutory language, the rule does not apply to conduct and statements taking place after a contract has been executed. Thus, evidence of negotiations occurring after a written agreement will not be excluded by the parol evidence rule.-”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The execution of a contract in writing, whether the law requires it to be written or not, supersedes all the oral negotiations or stipulations concerning its matter which preceded or accompanied the execution of the instrument.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Johnson v. Coss
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.