Noble v. C.E.D.O., Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently January 2013
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 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 Hubbard v. United Press International, Inc. · A. J. Chromy Construction Co. v. Commercial Mechanical Services, Inc. · Durfee v. Rod Baxter Imports, Inc. · Clements Auto Company v. The Service Bureau Corporation · Orwick v. Belshan
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“make or cause to be made any untrue statement of a material fact in any application, notice, report, or other document filed with the commissioner under sections 80C.01 to 80C.22, or omit to state in any such application, notice, report or other document any material fact which is required to be stated therein....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[i]t is also the rule in Minnesota that prejudgment interest is not allowed on unliquidated claims that are not readily ascertainable by computation or by reference to generally recognized standards, or where the amount of the claim is dependent in whole or in part upon the discretion of the 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.