Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 90 N.M. 48 - Withrow v. Woozencraft

Withrow v. Woozencraft’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
July 1986
most recently cited

7 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on First National Bank Ex Rel. Huckleby v. Nor-Am Agricultural Products, Inc. · Mozert v. Noeding · Proctor v. Waxler · Snodgrass v. Turner Tourist Hotels, Inc. · Anderson v. Welsh

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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) A summary judgment proceeding is not to decide an issue of fact, but, rather, to determine whether one exists. (2) Summary judgment can be granted only where the record shows there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. (3) The party opposing the motion for summary judgment must be given the benefit of all reasonable doubts in determining whether an issue of fact exists. (4) Summary judgment can be granted only where the moving party is entitled to the judgment as a matter of law, upon clear and undisputed facts. (5) Summary judgment proceedings must not be used as a substitute for trial. (Citations omitted.)”
    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.