Newlan v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently November 2014 · most notably Jones v. State Board of Medicine (1976), Friel v. Boise City Housing Authority (1994)
2 federal appellate · 37 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 Roe v. Wade · San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez · McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher · Shapiro v. Thompson · Boddie v. Connecticut
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"6-906. Filing claims against political subdivision Time. All claims against a political subdivision arising under the provisions of this act shall be presented to and filed with the clerk or secretary of the political subdivision within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date the claim arose or reasonably should have been discovered, whichever is later."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Courts of justice shall be open to every person and a speedy remedy afforded for every injury of person, property or character, and right and justice shall be administered without sale, denial, delay, or prejudice.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Even assuming, however, that the Jorstad actual notice test is still viable there has been no such actual notice in these cases. Although the accidents involved herein were apparently investigated and reports thereof were filed, nevertheless there is no indication that the State could have even suspected it might be subject to a claim. The State was not on notice of any facts to allow it to arrive at an amicable accord with a claimant or to investigate a possible claim to determine its merits and if necessary prepare a defense, which are two of the purposes for a notice statute set forth in Jorstad.” 96 Idaho at 716-717, 535 P.2d at 1353 .”
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.