Grothe v. Olafson’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently August 2001
11 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 Ferrell v. Baxter · State, Department of Highways v. Green · Patrick v. Sedwick · Sloan v. Atlantic Richfield Company · State v. I'ANSON
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; 2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); [or] 3) fraud ..., misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party[.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) must be such as would probably change the result on a new trial; (2) must have been discovered since the trial; (3) must be of such a nature that it could not have been discovered before trial by due diligence; (4) must be material; (5) must not be merely cumulative or impeaching.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McCall v. Coats“damages on account of the injury or death.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Nickels v. Napolilli
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.