681 So. 2d 97 - Cummings v. Benderman’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
67 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably 708 So. 2d 44 - Par Industries, Inc. v. Target Container Co. (1998), 949 So. 2d 9 - Biglane v. Under the Hill Corp. (2007)
67 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 Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Mississippi Ex Rel. Moore · Culbreath v. Johnson · 467 So. 2d 657 - Bell v. City of Bay St. Louis · Cooper v. Crabb · 557 So. 2d 780 - Harrison County v. City of Gulfport
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This Court will always review a chancellor's findings of fact, but the Court will not disturb the factual findings of a chancellor when supported by substantial evidence unless the Court can say with reasonable certainty that the chancellor abused his discretion, was manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous or applied an erroneous legal standard.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) Intervention of Right. Upon timely application, anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) when a statute confers an unconditional right to intervene; or (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and he is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“are not bright lines, but ranges — not all “interests” are of equal rank, not all impairments are of the same degree, representation by existing parties may be more or less adequate, and there is no litmus paper test for timeliness. Application of the rule requires that its components be read not discreetly, but together. A showing that a very strong interest exists may warrant intervention upon a lesser showing of impairment or inadequacy of representation. Similarly, where representation is clearly inadequate, a lesser interest may suffice as a basis for granting intervention.”
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.