Krepcik v. Interstate Transit Lines’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably Lund v. Holbrook (1951), Krepcik v. Interstate Transit Lines (1951)
45 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 Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan · Greenberg v. Fireman's Fund Insurance · Frank v. State · Lincoln Joint Stock Land Bank v. Barnes · Koehn v. City of Hastings
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is the duty of the trial court, without request, to instruct the jury on each issue presented by the pleadings and supported by evidence. “A litigant is entitled to have the jury instructed .as to his theory of the case as shown by pleading and evidence, and a failure to do so is prejudicial error.” McKain v. Platte Valley Public Power and Irrigation District, 151 Neb. 497 , 37 N. W. 2d 923 . “ ‘It is the duty of the trial court, without request, to submit to and properly instruct the jury upon all the material issues presented by the pleadings and the evidence.’ Dunlap v. Welch, 152 Neb. 459 , 41 N. W. 2d 384 . This rule applies to the affirmative defense of contributory negligence. Johnson v. Griepenstroh, 150 Neb. 126 , 33 N. W. 2d 549 . “It is the uniform and proper practice in this state that where specific acts of negligence are charged and supported by the evidence, the trial court instructs as to the specific acts so alleged and supported. It necessarily follows that where specific charges of contributory negligence are pleaded and supported by proof the instructions should submit those specific charges to the jury for its determination. Reece v. Jefferson Transp. Co. (Mo. App.), 160 S. W. 2d 789 . To fail to do so, whether or not requested to do so, is error.” Krepcik v. Interstate Transit Lines, 153 Neb. 98 , 43 N. W. 2d 609 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The purpose of a motion for a new trial is to enable the court to correct errors that have occurred in the conduct of the trial. [Citations omitted.]... ... In considering and passing upon a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the court does not examine any issue of fact. The court, by the mandate of the statute, considers the record made on the trial and decides as a matter of law whether the evidence already in the record justified the submission of the case to the jury, or whether the court on the trial should have sustained the motion for a directed verdict. The court cannot, in such a situation, weigh or consider any part of the evidence in the sense of deciding any issue of fact. The matter presented by the motion for a judgment is one of law. . . . The proceedings by the trial court on the motion of appellee for judgment was in the language of the statute only a “determination of the legal questions raised by the motion.”... . . . The party against whom a judgment notwithstanding the verdict has been rendered does not want a new trial and should not be required to make application for a new trial, a ruling on which he might not be able to secure in the limited time permitted for an appeal. What he wants is the right of a review in this court of the correctness of the action of the trial court in setting aside the verdict and rendering a judgment adverse to him. . . . [N]o motion for a new trial should be required in reference to any order made by the cou”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dunn v. Hemberger“(c) Joined With Motion for New Trial. A motion for a new trial may be joined with this motion, or a new trial may be prayed for in the alternative. If a verdict was returned the court may allow the judgment to stand or may reopen the judgment and either order a new trial or direct the entry of judgment as if the requested verdict had been directed. If no verdict was returned the court may direct the entry of judgment as if the requested verdict had been directed or may order a new trial.”
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.