Pauley v. Simonson’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
1 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably Detmers v. Costner (2012), In Re the Dissolution of Midnight Star Enterprises, L.P. (2006)
1 district · 23 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 Ziegler Furniture & Funeral Home, Inc. v. Cicmanec · Krier v. Dell Rapids Twp. · Christiansen v. Strand · Commercial Trust & Savings Bank v. Christensen · Jensen v. Pure Plant Food International, Ltd.
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Summary judgment is authorized ‘if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Krier v. Dell Rapids Twp., 2006 SD 10, ¶ 12 , 709 N.W.2d 841, 844-45 (citing SDCL 15-6-56(c)). “Once we determine that the material facts are undisputed, our review is limited to whether the law was correctly applied.” Id. (citation omitted). “We review questions of law de novo with no discretion given to the circuit court.” Wagner v. Brownlee, 2006 SD 38, ¶ 24 , 713 N.W.2d 592, 600 (citing Blenner v. City of Rapid City, 2003 SD 121, ¶ 41 , 670 N.W.2d 508, 514 ).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Clay v. Weber““A contract is not rendered ambiguous simply because the parties do not agree on its proper construction or their intent upon executing the contract.” Rather, a contract is ambiguous only when “it is capable of more than one meaning when viewed objectively by a reasonably intelligent person who has examined the context of the entire integrated agreement.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Smetana v. Smetana“[I]f the contract `is uncertain or ambiguous,' parol and extrinsic evidence may be used for clarification.”
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.