Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 447 NW2D 48 - Limpert v. Bail

Limpert v. Bail’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
3
states following
September 2015
most recently cited

3 district · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently September 2015

3 district · 13 state decisions

901989199020002010decided

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 Wilson v. Great Northern Railway Company · Lincoln Grain, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand · Bego v. Gordon · Groseth International, Inc. v. Tenneco, Inc. · Yarema v. Exxon Corp.

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

  1. “Even if the contractual relationship was between Rotenberger [veterinarian] and Limpert [owner and seller], rather than Rotenberger and Bail [buyer], a breach by Rotenberger of the duty owed to Limpert could still render Rotenberger liable to Bail. As explained by the court in Layman, supra : Where one undertakes by contract to perform a certain service and is chargeable with the duty of performing the work in a reasonably proper and efficient manner, and injury occurs to a blameless person, the injured person has a right of action directly against the offending contractor which is not based on any contractual obligation but rather on the failure of such contractor to exercise due care in the performance of his assumed obligation. Id. at 341 (quoting 57 Am.Jur.2d Negligence § 50). Such an imposition of liability is consistent with SDCL 20-9-1, which provides in part: "Every person is responsible for injury to the person, property, or rights of another caused by his ... want of ordinary care or skill[.]" Rotenberger had a duty to exercise due care in the testing of the cattle. If in turn, Rotenberger allowed Limpert to do some of the testing, it would not absolve him from his responsibility to Bail. Thus, a legal duty and genuine issues of material fact exist.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “If reasonable persons, upon examining the evidence, might reach different conclusions, a motion for summary judgment should be denied and the case tried on the merits.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Liability in tort for breach of that duty may arise as the result of negligence during the performance of the contract, even if there has been no breach of contract.”
    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.