Nelson v. Schellpfeffer’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Poeppel v. Lester (2013), United States v. Barnett (2005)
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 24 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 Beanstalk Group, Inc. v. AM General Corp. · Hayes v. Northern Hills General Hospital · Singpiel v. Morris · Crowley v. Texaco, Inc. · Frost v. Williams
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The goal of contract interpretation is to see to it that the mutual intent of the parties is carried into effect. Singpiel v. Morris, 1998 SD 86 , 582 N.W.2d 715 [(1998)]. The contract is to be read as a whole, making every effort to give effect to all provisions. Crowley v. Texaco, Inc., 306 N.W.2d 871 (S.D.1981). When the words of a contract are clear and explicit and lead to no absurd consequences, the search for the parties’ common intent is at an end. Frost v. Williams, 2 S.D. 457 , 50 N.W. 964 (1892); Giddings v. Nefsy, 51 S.D. 73 , 212 N.W. 507 (1927).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] contract will not be interpreted literally if doing so would produce absurd results, in the sense of results that the parties, presumed to be rational persons pursuing rational ends, are very unlikely to have agreed to seek.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]his Court is constrained from interpreting a contract literally if doing so would produce an absurd result.” (citation omitted)); Estate of Fisher, 2002 SD 62, ¶ 14 , 645 N.W.2d at 846 (”
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.