Hubble v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Lewis v. B & R CORPORATION (2001), James v. Wilson (2002)
33 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 Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel Service Center, Inc. · Hill v. Fiscal Court of Warren County · Amburgey v. Commonwealth · Monning v. Kentucky Hotel · Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. An Unnamed Attorney
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A movant should not succeed in a motion for summary judgment unless the right to judgment is shown with such clarity that there is no room left for controversy and it appears impossible for a nonmoving party to produce evidence at trial warranting judgment in his favor. Summary judgment is to be cautiously granted and should not be used as a substitute for trial or merely for the sake of efficiency or expediency.... The motion for summary judgment must convince the circuit court from evidence in the record of the nonexistence of a genuine issue of material fact.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The standard of review on appeal of a summary judgment is whether the trial court correctly found that there were no genuine issues as to any material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.... There is no requirement that the appellate court defer to the trial court since factual findings are not at issue.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“(b) Admissions of parties. A statement is not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness, if the statement is offered against a party and is: ... (5) A statement by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. James v. Wilson
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.