Bridge v. Karl's, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Overstreet v. Shoney's, Inc. (1999), Veeder v. Kennedy (1999)
30 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 Nugent v. Quam · Smith v. Weber · Podio v. American Colloid Company · Haggar v. Olfert · Miller v. Hernandez
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`judicial mind, in view of the law and the circumstances of the particular case, could reasonably have reached such a conclusion.'”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he value of an opinion of an expert witness is no better than the facts upon which it is based.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“A motion for a directed verdict under SDCL 15-6-50(a) questions the legal sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict against the moving party. Upon such a motion, the trial court must determine whether there is any substantial evidence to sustain the action. The evidence must be accepted which is most favorable to the nonmoving party and the trial court must indulge all legitimate inferences therefrom in his favor. If sufficient evidence exists so that reasonable minds could differ, a directed'verdict is not appropriate. The trial court’s decisions and rulings on such motions are presumed correct and this Court will not seek reasons to reverse. A motion for judgment [notwithstanding the verdict] is based on and relates back to a directed verdict motion made at the close of all the evidence. [SDCL 15-6-50(b).] Thus, the grounds asserted in support of the directed verdict motion are brought before the trial court for a second review. We review the testimony and evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict or the nonmoving party, then without weighing the evidence we must decide if there is evidence which would have supported or did support a verdict.”
4 later decisions 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.