70 Ark. App. 114 - Inge v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably 76 Ark. App. 173 - McWilliams v. Schmidt (2001), 86 Ark. App. 1 - Cranfill v. Union Planters Bank, N.A. (2004)
42 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 Wallace v. Broyles · Adams v. Arthur · Martin v. Arthur · Wyatt v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance · Milam v. Bank of Cabot
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) provides: When a motion is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him. (Emphasis added.) The Arkansas Supreme Court recently reviewed the law in regard to summary judgment in New Maumelle Harbor v. Rochelle, 338 Ark. 43 , 991 S.W2d 552 (1999): In these cases, we need only decide if the granting of summary judgment was appropriate based on whether the evidentiary items presented by the moving party in support of the motion left a material question of fact unanswered. The burden of sustaining a motion for summary judgment is always the responsibility of the moving party. All proof submitted must be viewed in a light most favorable to the party resisting the motion, and any doubts and inferences must be resolved against the moving party. Our rule states, and we have acknowledged, that summary judgment is proper when a claiming party fails to show that there is a genuine issue as to a material fact and when the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. 338 Ark. at 45-46 , 991 S.W.2d at 553 (quoting Sublett v. Hipps, 330 Ark. 58, 62 , 952 S.W.2d 140, 142 (1997), quoting Milam v. Bank of Cabot, 327 A”
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.