Putro v. Baker’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably State v. Stringer (1995), Lopez v. Josephson (2001)
50 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 Hayward v. Richardson Construction Company · Capps v. State · Styles v. State · McDaniels v. McDaniels · Barajas v. Sonders
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The guiding principle of our legal system is fairness. We must tenaciously adhere to the ideal that both sides of a lawsuit be guaranteed a fair trial. Sec. 27, Art. Ill, Montana Constitution. The function of the jury is to decide the facts of the case only on evidence introduced at trial. It has been noted that ‘There is no practicable method to so analyze the mental operation of the jurors as to determine whether, in point of fact, the verdict would have been the same if the trial had been conducted, as both parties had a right to expect, according to law and upon the evidence in court.’ McDaniels v. McDaniels, 40 Vt. 363 . The trial court should have declared a mistrial in justice to itself as well as to parties, so that a fair trial may result and the verdict when rendered may be entitled to the respect of both parties and the confidence of the court. We cannot be too strict in guarding trials by juries from improper influences. This strictness is necessary to give due confidence to parties in the results of their causes, and to enlighten the public who have recourse to our courts that any improper influence which has the natural tendency to prejudice the verdict is grounds for a mistrial. * * *” 147 Mont. 147, 148 , 410 P.2d 722 .”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he presumption may be rebutted by the use of testimony of the jurors `to show facts which prove that prejudice or injury did not or could not occur.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Allers v. Riley · State v. Gillham“[W]e also realize that unexplained prejudicial references to important matters in litigation may have a “natural tendency” to infect the proceedings with an unfairness that can be corrected only by starting anew the legal contest.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Allers v. Riley · State v. McMahon
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.