Nash v. Hendricks’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently March 2026
20 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2671 · 28 U.S.C. § 2675
Relies on Feres v. United States · Midlantic National Bank v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection · Public Service Commission v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. · United States v. Johnson · Barnes v. Everett
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Summary judgment is to be granted only when it is clear that there are no genuine issues of material fact to be litigated, and the moving party is entided to judgment as a matter of law. See Vanderpool v. Pace, 351 Ark. 630 , 97 S.W.3d 404 (2003). The purpose of summary judgment is not to try the issues, but to determine whether there are any issues to be tried. City of Barling v. Fort Chaffee Redevelopment Auth., 347 Ark. 105 , 60 S.W.3d 443 (2001). Once the moving party has established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the opposingparty must meet proof with proof and demonstrate the existence of a material issue of fact. Spears v. City of Fordyce, 351 Ark. 305 , 92 S.W.3d 38 (2002).”
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.