Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 519 NW2D 302 - Bye v. MacK

Bye v. MacK’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
2
states following
July 2014
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Horton v. United States Steel Corp. · Shark v. Thompson · Oskey Gasoline and Oil Company, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation v. Continental Oil Company, a Delaware Corporation · Layman v. Braunschweigische Maschinenbauanstalt, Inc. · Martinson Bros. v. Hjellum

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

  1. “‘[h]ad the Defendants properly perfected the Plaintiff’s appeal, however, a preponderance of the evidence failed to establish that the issues presented on appeal would have been sufficient to reverse the adverse summary judgmentsThis Court treated the trial court’s conclusion as a”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “A choice between two permissible views of the evidence is not clearly erroneous.”
    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.