Kirksey v. Grohmann’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 2022
9 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.
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Summary judgment is proper when the law is correctly applied and there are no genuine issues of material fact.” Kirksey v. Grohmann, 2008 SD 76, ¶ 12 , 754 N.W.2d 825, 827 (citing Rush v. U.S. Bancorp Equip. Fin., Inc., 2007 SD 119, ¶ 7 , 742 N.W.2d 266, 268 (quoting Heib v. Lehrkamp, 2005 SD 98, ¶ 19 , 704 N.W.2d 875, 882 (citing SDCL 15-6-56(c); Keystone Plaza Condo. Ass’n v. Eastep, 2004 SD 28, ¶ 8 , 676 N.W.2d 842, 846 ))). Here, however,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Summary judgment is proper when the law is correctly applied and there are no genuine issues of material fact.”
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.