Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 48 Haw. 32 - Richards v. Midkiff

Richards v. Midkiff’s Empirical Analysis

1964

Citation profile

57
cited by 57 later decisions
5
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

57 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Johnson v. Soulis (1975), Querubin v. Thronas (2005)

57 state decisions

270196419701980199020002010decided

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 Frederick Hart & Co. v. Recordgraph Corp. · Midkiff v. Castle & Cooke, Inc. · Kramme v. Mewshaw · Waterhouse v. Capital Investment Co. · BROWN v. Bishop Trust 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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A fact is material if proof of that fact would have the effect of establishing or refuting one of the essential elements of a cause of action or defense asserted by the parties. The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. In other words, we must view all of the evidence and the inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “a 'genuine issue as to any [material] fact' ... [in] a conflict in the affidavits as to a particular matter must be of such a nature that it would affect the result.”
    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.