Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 578 SW2D 349 - Blanks v. Cantwell

Blanks v. Cantwell’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
March 1992
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 1992

6 state decisions

50197919801990decided

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 Murphy v. Carron · Cherry v. City of Hayti Heights · Votaw v. Schmittgens · Salzwedel Ex Rel. Salzwedel v. Vassil · Wooliver v. Schopp

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

  1. ““So stated, plaintiff’s points are mere abstract, conclusionary observations which totally fail to state wherein and why the trial court erred in granting summary judgment and what issue of fact precluded entry of the judgment.” Blanks v. Cantwell, 578 S.W.2d 349, 350 (Mo.App.1979).”
    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.