Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 132 Or. 46 - Johnson v. Hoffman

Johnson v. Hoffman’s Empirical Analysis

1929

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
February 1970
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently February 1970

12 state decisions

40192919301940195019601970decided

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 Congreve v. . Smith · Carty v. McMenamin & Ward · Huber v. Miller · Smith v. Public Service Corp. · Linsley v. Bushnell

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

  1. ““It must be premised that the law of the state of Oregon does not permit a nonsuit to be granted whenever there is some competent evidence produced by the plaintiff in the trial of a cause supporting each material allegation of his complaint. This court has frequently declared that a motion for nonsuit is in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence, and that such motion admits not only all that the evidence proves but all that it tends to prove: Collins v. United Brokers Co., 99 Or. 556 ( 194 P. 458 ); Carty v. McMenamin & Ward, 108 Or. 489 ( 216 P. 228 ). A motion for a directed verdict presents the same question for decision as does a motion for judgment of nonsuit. ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““The court may not take the cause from the jury if there is some competent evidence produced by the plaintiff supporting each material allegation in the complaint. The evidence is circumstantial. Yet each item of evidence is to be considered with all of the circumstances of the case. When so considered, to what conclusion of fact do they lead touching the question here? May the court say that there is such an absence of proof that the cause should not be submitted to the jury? After considering the question carefully, we are of the opinion that the lower court rightfully determined that the said motions of appellant should be overruled.””
    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.