Branch v. Durham’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 558 So. 2d 869 - Tucker v. Hinds County · 481 So. 2d 247 - Shaw v. Burchfield · 669 So. 2d 56 - Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. v. Berry · 700 So. 2d 619 - Russell v. Orr · 594 So. 2d 1170 - Mantachie Nat. Gas v. Miss. Valley Gas Co.
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]e do not try issues. Rather, we only determine whether there are issues to be tried. Furthermore, it is well-settled that motions for summary judgment are to be viewed with a skeptical eye, and if a trial court should err, it is better to err on the side of denying the motion. The focal point of our de novo review is on material facts. In defining a "material" fact in the context of summary judgments, the Mississippi Supreme Court has stated that "[t]he presence of fact issues in the record does not per se entitle a party to avoid summary judgment. The court must be convinced that the factual issue is a material one, one that matters in an outcome determinative sense."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“This Court conducts de novo review of orders granting or denying summary judgment and looks at all the evidentiary matters before itadmissions in pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions, affidavits, etc.”
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.