Garrison v. Trowbridge’s Empirical Analysis
1947
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently April 1986 · most notably Britton v. Farmers Insurance Group (1986), Kuberich v. Popovich (1965)
30 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 Maki v. Murray Hospital · State v. McConville · Walsh v. Butte, Anaconda & Pacific Ry. Co. · State v. Mott
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In considering the propriety of the court’s ruling in granting the new trial, we keep in mind that, ‘The granting, or refusal to grant, a motion for a new trial lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its order thereon will be reversed only for manifest abuse of that discretion. * * * “ ‘An order, general in its terms, granting a new trial, will be upheld if it can be sustained on any ground stated in the motion therefor, and such an order will not be set aside as readily as an order denying a new trial, since the latter ends the case, whereas the former merely restores the parties to the position they occupied before the trial.’ Maki v. Murray Hospital, 91 Mont. 251, 260 , 7 P.2d 228, 230 . To the same effect is Walsh v. Butte, Anaconda etc. R. Co., 109 Mont. 456 , 97 P.2d 325 . A stronger showing is required to justify interference with an order granting than one refusing a new trial. Collins v. Hodgson, 5 Cal.App.2d 366 , 42 P.2d 700 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““1. Irregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury, or adverse party, or any order of the court, or abuse of discretion, by which either party was prevented from having a fair trial; * * * “2. Accident or surprise, which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against; “3. Newly discovered evidence, material for the party making the application, which he could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the trial.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Herren v. Hawks
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.