Blaske v. Smith & Entzeroth, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably Trinity River Authority v. URS Consultants, Inc. (1994), Lester v. Sayles (1993)
9 federal appellate · 55 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 Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. · Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. · Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co. · Lord Electric Co. v. United States · Rust v. Sullivan
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A “special law” is a law that “includes less than all who are similarly situated ... but a law is not special if it applies to all of a given class alike and the classification is made on a reasonable basis.” “[T]he test of a special law is the appropriateness of its provisions to the objects that it excludes. It is not, therefore, what a law includes, that makes it special, but what it excludes.” Contrary to Ms. Batek’s assertion, section 516.170 does not impermissibly exclude or separately classify any member of a given group. ... There are valid reasons for the general assembly to have provided for a different time for the commencement of the limitations period for plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"It is all too easy to assume that this provision means that a plaintiff can always go to court and obtain a judgment on the claim asserted; it obviously does not mean this. Thus, the major issue in almost every consideration of the open courts provision is , to determine exactly where the courts draw the line between the right of the legislature to modify the substantive law to eliminate or restrict some cause of action and the right of an individual litigant to have open access to the courts to obtain some remedy available under the applicable substantive law.” (Blaske, 821 S.W.2d at 832 .)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“1. Any action to recover damages for personal injury, property damage or wrongful death arising out of a defective or unsafe condition of any improvement to real property, including any action for contribution or indemnity for damages sustained on account of the defect or ■unsafe condition, shall be commenced within ten years of the date on which any such improvement is completed. 2. This section shall only apply to actions against any person whose sole connection with the improvement is performing or furnishing, in whole or in part, the design, planning or construction, including architectural, engineering or construction services, of the improvement. 3. If any action is commenced against any person specified by subsection 2, any such person may, within one year of the date of the filing of such an action, notwithstanding the provisions of subsection 1, commence an action or a third party action for contribution or indemnity for damages sustained or claimed in any action because of personal injury, property damage or wrongful death arising out of a defective or unsafe condition of any improvement to real property. 4. This section shall not apply if: (1) An action is barred by another provision of law; (2) A person conceals any defect or deficiency in the design, planning or construction, including architectural, engineering or construction services, in an improvement for real property, if the defect or deficiency so concealed directly results in the defective or unsafe condi”
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.