Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 102 Idaho 764 - Quincy v. JOINT SCHOOL DIST. NO. 41, ETC.

Quincy v. JOINT SCHOOL DIST. NO. 41, ETC.’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
2
states following
June 2014
most recently cited

26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently June 2014 · most notably State v. Hedger (1989), Ross v. Coleman Co., Inc. (1988)

26 state decisions

1801981199020002010decided

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 State v. Rose · Mann v. Safeway Stores, Inc. · Rutter v. McLaughlin · Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Langdon · State v. Brady

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

  1. ““By substantial, it is not meant that the evidence need be uncontradicted. All that is required is that the evidence be of such sufficient quantity and probative value that reasonable minds could conclude that the verdict of the jury was proper. It is not necessary that the evidence be of such quantity or quality that reasonable minds must conclude, only that they could conclude.” (Emphasis in original).”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Although the voir dire of Mr. Pugh [the prospective juror] by plaintiffs counsel initially gave reason to challenge for cause, subsequent questioning by the court clarified the responses of Mr. Pugh so as to give the court ample basis for concluding that Mr. Pugh would serve as a fair and impartial juror. In view of these answers given by Mr. Pugh to the court’s questions, it was clearly within the court’s discretion to deny plaintiffs challenges for cause.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[t]he substance of that proposed instruction was adequately covered elsewhere and, hence, the trial court did not err in refusing to give appellant's proposed instruction.”
    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.