Rekart v. Safeway Stores, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
64 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably Goodman v. Brock Ex Rel. Estate of Brock (1972), Novak v. Dow (1970)
64 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 Lear, Inc. v. Adkins · Automatic Radio Manufacturing Co. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Tapia v. Panhandle Steel Erectors Company · Dahl v. Turner · Garcia v. Barber's Super Markets, Inc.
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence * * *.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Since one good defense will defeat recovery on a claim, where a defendant pleads both a sufficient negative and an affirmative defense, plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment only in the event that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to both the negative and affirmative defenses and he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. When these conditions are satisfied, summary judgment may properly go for the plaintiff; otherwise not. Where the defendant’s defenses are limited to one or more affirmative defenses and there is no triable issue of fact as to any of the affirmative defenses, or they are all legally insufficient, then the case is ripe for summary adjudication in accordance with applicable principles of substantive law. If, on the other hand, there is a triable issue of fact as to any one or more legally sufficient affirmative defenses, the plaintiff would not be entitled to summary judgment. .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“* * * Here we have no evidence that a messy condition existed at the time of the accident. * (Citations omitted.) If such a condition existed it must be inferred. For a messy condition to have been the cause for the bottle falling we must put inference on inference. This we may not do. (Citations omitted.) We have the fact that there was shelving in common use that was safer than the stacking method used by defendant. If we infer that the stacking method in use on the day of the accident was unsafe we must use that inference to infer such was the proximate cause for the fall of the Pepsi Cola bottle. Again we place inference on inference. [ 81 N.M. at 493 , 468 P.2d at 894 .]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Deakin v. Putt
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.