Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 476 NW2D 257 - Cody v. Leapley

Cody v. Leapley’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
February 2021
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently February 2021

10 state decisions

601991200020102020decided

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 Bell v. Wolfish · Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co. · Kois v. Wisconsin · Van Oster v. State of Kansas · McCrae v. Wt Hankins

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

  1. “if the cause of action is independent of the notice requirement, such as is the case herein in regard to a claim of wrongful seizure of one's property, the statute is found to be in the nature of a statute of limitation. As such, under SDCL 15-6-8(c) it is in the nature of an affirmative defense and must not only be pled, but to be granted relief under SDCL 15-6-56, it must be established as a matter of uncontroverted fact.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “No action for the recovery of damages for personal injury, property damage, error or omission or death caused by a public entity or its employees may be maintained against the public entity or its employees unless written notice of the time, place and cause of the injury is given to the public entity as provided by this chapter within one hundred eighty days after the injury.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The nonproduction or suppression by a party of evidence which is within his power to produce and which is material to an issue in the case justifies the inference that it would be unfavorable to him if produced.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.