Nitz v. David Nitz, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 2 state decisions

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

1. “If the Nitzes could state a cause of action that did not arise out of an improvement to real property, Minn.Stat. § 541.051, subd. 1, would not apply, and the applicable statute of limitations presumably would be six years. See Minn. Stat. § 541.05 (5) (1984). We have therefore expedited the release of this opinion in order to afford the Nitzes the opportunity to pursue such a cause of action, if one exists, before the six-year period expires.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nitz v. Nitz

2. “The language of the Nitzes’ complaint is fatal to their argument. * * * The Nitzes’ complaint involved the deck and residence which were clearly improvements to real property. Therefore, Minn.Stat. § 541.051, subd. 1, applied to their claims. Because the complaint was filed more than two years after the injury occurred, the Nitzes’ cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nitz v. Nitz