Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 442 N.W.2d 322 - Stern v. Dill

Stern v. Dill’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
1
states following
December 2016
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 3 district · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably Nesladek v. Ford Motor Co. (1995), State v. Johnson (1994)

2 federal appellate · 3 district · 19 state decisions

1401989199020002010decided

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 Meagher v. Kavli · 107 Cal. App. 3d 45 - Strauch v. Superior Court · Alger v. Hayes · Parker v. O'PHELAN · Taragan v. Eli Lilly & 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[T]he identity of each person whom plaintiff expects to call as an expert witness at trial to testify with respect to the issues of malpractice or causation, the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify, and a summary of the grounds for each opinion.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Failure to comply with subdivision 2, clause (1) [affidavit of expert review], within 60 days after demand for the affidavits results, upon motion, in mandatory dismissal with prejudice of each cause of action as to which expert testimony is necessary to establish a prima facie case. Failure to comply with subdivision 2, clause (2) [affidavit identifying experts], and subdivision 4 results, upon motion, in mandatory dismissal with prejudice of each cause of action as to which expert testimony is necessary to establish a prima facie case.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “`neither creates a new cause of action nor deprives defendant of any defense on the merits,'”
    2 later decisions 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.