Cummings v. Mickelson’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably Discover Bank v. Stanley (2008), Benson v. State (2006)
3 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
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 Southern Pacific Terminal Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission · Dunn v. Blumstein · Church of Scientology of California v. United States · Moore v. Ogilvie · Jones v. Montague
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“determine a moot question of public importance”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“1. Did Judge Konenkamp exceed his statutory authority by ordering M.B. to undergo inpatient alcohol treatment during a juvenile delinquency proceeding against her child? 2. Did the court order violate M.B.'s right to procedural due process? 3. Does SDCL 26-7A-107(8) violate M.B.'s right to substantive due process? 4. Whether SDCL 26-7A-107(8) violates the state and federal constitutions' equal protection clauses? A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy. It may issue upon a showing that a public officer is acting or is about to act without or in excess of his jurisdiction, or without or in excess of the authority conferred by law. It may be issued in a direct application to this Court in appropriate circumstances. It is required that an applicant for a writ of prohibition must show that he or she has no `plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law' available to them. If there is another `plain, speedy and adequate' remedy at law or in equity, equally available to an applicant, this Court has held it will not issue a writ of prohibition.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. M.B. v. Konenkamp“Views of individuals involved with the legislative process as to intent have not received the same recognition from this Court. We held such individual testimony of no assistance in State v. Bushfield, 69 S.D. 172, 176 , 8 N.W.2d 1, 3 (1948) for two reasons: (1) it is the intent of the legislative body that is sought, not the intent of the individual members who may have diverse reasons for or against a proposition and (2) it is “universally held” that “evidence of a ... draftsman of a statute is not a competent aid to a court in construing a statute.” The case now before us shows the wisdom of this prior holding.”
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.