Wallace v. Broyles’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Flentje v. First Nat. Bank of Wynne (2000), Wallace v. Broyles (1998)
48 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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Union Pacific Railroad v. Sharp · Schoen v. Gulledge · Skinner v. R.J. Griffin & Co.
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Harris, and Ozark Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Clinic, Ltd., petition for rehearing. They contend that we erred in our statement that the wrong standard was applied by the trial court in granting their motion for summary judgment. We disagree and deny the petition. The argument is that we have, in prior summary-judgment appeals, used the very terminology used by the trial court here, i.e., whether”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wallace v. Broyles“could differ as to a factual conclusion to be reached. The petitioners set forth the following five of our earlier decisions in support of their point. In Thomas v. Sessions, 307 Ark. 203 , 818 S.W.2d 940 (1991), we reversed a summary judgment in a wrongful-death case after pointing out that the potential evidence shown by discovery responses was in conflict. Although we spoke of”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wallace v. Broyles“concept. If it has not been clear heretofore, we hope this opinion clarifies that, although we follow federal courts' interpretation of the parallel rule, F.R.C.P. 56(c) when possible for the sake of uniformity, we have never gone so far as to say, much less hold, that we will make a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wallace v. Broyles
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.