Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 328 NW2D 529 - Kunau v. Miller

Kunau v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
February 2016
most recently cited

17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently February 2016

17 state decisions

801983199020002010decided

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 Qualley v. Chrysler Credit Corp. · Fundermann v. Mickelson · City of Eldridge v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. · Union Trust & Savings Bank v. Stanwood Feed & Grain, Inc. · Budde v. City Development Board

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

  1. “appeals to the supreme court must be taken within, and not after, thirty days from the entry of the order, judgment, or decree, unless a motion ... as provided in R.C.P. 179(b) is filed, and then within thirty days after the entry of the ruling on such motion....”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Cogent arguments can be made for and against giving parties an automatic opportunity to request a court to reconsider any otherwise final ruling. Parties frequently are confident that the merits of their positions will prove irresistible on second hearing. If the court does change its decision, appeal may sometimes become unnecessary. In reality, however, a second hearing is often merely repetitious and involves burdens of time and delay that the system can neither bear nor afford.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Except as may be provided by separate rule, a rule [1.904(2)] motion lies only when addressed to a ruling made upon trial of an issue of fact without a jury. This is because rule [1.904(2)] ordinarily applies only when rule [1.904(1)] applies, and rule [1.904(1)] dictates procedures to be followed by a court in finding facts and stating legal conclusions when “trying an issue of fact without a jury....””
    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.