Boyer v. Champeny’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

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

1. ““The statute above quoted (now G. S. 1949, 60-3005), with other provisions of the code relating to proceedings for a new trial, make it the duty of the court, in passing on a petition for a new trial such as was presented in tills case, to consider the pleadings and evidence offered at the trial as well as that offered in support of the petition for a new trial, and upon the whole case to determine whether the decision given at the trial was wrong. (Houghton v. Bilson, 90 Kan. 360 , 133 Pac. 722 .). . . . “Evidence offered in support of a petition for a new trial should be considered on the same basis as though it were offered on a motion for a new trial, the only difference being that if it is discovered after the three days provided for the filing of a motion for a new trial it may be considered and presented by the court under a petition for a new trial. Naturally the new evidence offered should be material, ordinarily should not be simply cumulative or impeaching, and the party presenting it should make a showing that with reasonable diligence he could not have discovered the evidence in time to have presented it at the trial.” (p. 437.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. Wichita Transportation Corp.