Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2007 SD 89 - Anderson v. Keller

Anderson v. Keller’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently August 2024

20 state decisions

120200720102020decided

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 Committee for the First Amendment v. Campbell · Ben Ezra Weinstein and Company Inc v. America Online Incorporated · Trask v. Franco · Price v. Western Resources, Inc. · Maynard v. Heeren

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

  1. “Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion that he cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts essential to justify his opposition, the court may refuse the application for judgment or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery to be had or may make such other order as is just.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “the Rule 56(f) affidavit ... includefs] identification of “the probable facts not available and what steps have been taken to obtain” those facts, “how additional time will enable the nonmovant to rebut the movant’s allegations of no genuine issue of material fact,” and “why facts precluding summary judgment cannot be presented” at the time of the affidavit.”
    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.