Batchoff v. Craney’s Empirical Analysis
1946
Citation profile
2 district · 57 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably Brandenburger v. Toyota Motor Sales, U. S. A., Inc. (1973), Kitchen Krafters, Inc. v. Eastside Bank (1990)
2 district · 57 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 Thompson v. Los Angeles & San Diego Beach Railway Co. · Casey v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. · Wallace v. Wallace · Morton v. Mooney · Kelley v. John R. Daily Co.
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““There are cases which hold that the matter of granting a new trial for insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict rests in the discretion of the trial court. * * * We think the rule stated in these cases is too broad to be applied in every case. If there is substantial evidence supporting the verdict, then it will not do to say that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. The court’s discretion is exhausted when it finds substantial evidence in support of the verdict. Finding substantial evidence in the record to support the verdict, it would be unwarranted action to grant a new trial. * * * The weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses are exclusively for the jury. Section 10508, Revised Codes. And the direct evidence of one witness, who is entitled to full credit, is sufficient for proof of any fact, except perjury and treason.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“. . . [Wlhile proof of falsity in one part of a witness' testimony, inconsistent statements at other times, contradictory evidence, and reputation may discredit the witness, such proof goes only to the credibility of the witness, of which the jury remains the sole judge, as well as the weight to be given thereto ... [Allthough the jury may reject the false testimony and assume regarding the rest of it, an attitude of distrust, the jurors may render a verdict based upon the testimony of such witness if after examination they find it worthy of belief.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kis Happ v. Pifer
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.