Beck v. Lind’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently February 2023 · most notably State v. Skjonsby (1982), Matter of Cieminski (1978)
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 39 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 Gajewski v. Bratcher · Ellis v. Union Pacific Railroad · Schuh v. Allery Ex Rel. Allery · Schore v. Mueller · Matson v. Matson
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“At the trial or upon the hearing of a motion or an interlocutory proceeding, any part or all of a deposition, so far as admissible under the rules of evidence applied as though the witness were then present and testifying, may be used against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had reasonable notice thereof, in accordance with any of the following provisions: (1) Any deposition may be used by any party for the purpose of contradicting or impeaching the testimony of deponent as a witness, or for any other purpose permitted by the North Dakota Rules of Evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kunnanz v. Edge““Not in every case where the only testimony on damage is either zero or $500 can we conclude that a $300 award is not supported by the evidence, but when there is a strong inference that the trier of fact compromised between the right to recover and the proved damages sustained, we are justified in concluding that there is error. See Dege v. Produce Exchange Bank of St. Paul, 212 Minn. 44 , 2 N.W.2d 423, 425 (1942), and Schore v. Mueller, 290 Minn. 186 , 186 N.W.2d 699, 702 (1971).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““When the revenue laws provide ample punishment for the evasion by taxpayers of their just dues, it would seem a monstrous injustice to permit a mortgagor to defeat the payment of his debt by bringing any such issue into a suit brought to foreclose his mortgage. The alleged turpitude of the mortgagee furnishes no ground for the discharge of the mortgagor from the payment of his just debt.” Beck v. Lind, 235 N.W.2d 239, 245-246 .”
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.