Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 304 NW2D 193 - State v. Walker

State v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
January 1995
most recently cited

8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on State v. Hephner · State v. Reese · Stewart v. Hilton · General Mills, Inc. v. Prall · State v. Marchellino

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

  1. “made now of something which was previously done, to have effect as of the former date, the function, object, or purpose of such entry being to make the record speak the truth; to supply on the record something which has actually occurred, but has been omitted from the record through inadvertence or mistake. More specifically it has been held that the purpose of a nunc pro tunc entry is to correct mistakes of the clerk or other court officer, or inadvertence of counsel, or to settle defects or omissions in the record, so that it will show what actually took place.”
    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.