Settle v. Crawford’s Empirical Analysis
1932
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently July 1984
11 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 Farmers' State Bank of Arkansas City v. Stephenson · City of Newkirk v. Dimmers · Salisbury v. First Nat. Bank · Pressley v. Incorporated Town of Sallisaw · Scott v. Standridge
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““This court has often admonished trial courts to refrain from any remark or demeanor touching the subject under investigation in the trial which might have a tendency to indicate the opinion of the trial court as to merits of the case, or the truth or falsity of the testimony of witnesses, and has held such conduct to be erroneous. City of Newkirk v. Dimmers, 17 Okla. 525 , 87 P. 603 ; Pressley v. Inc. Town of Sallisaw, 54 Okla. 747 , 154 P. 660 ; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Kramer, 65 Okla. 165 , 165 P. 179 . In Sawyer v. Brown, 108 Okla. 265 , 236 P. 404 , the judgment was reversed and the cause was remanded, with directions to grant a new trial for prejudicial error consisting of the excluding of offered testimony and the attitude and demean- or of the trial court in the presence of the jury. The opinion does not reflect what action might have been taken had there been no question as to the excluding of testimony and had the attitude and demeanor of the trial court in the presence of the jury alone been under consideration. “Under the provisions of section 2822, C. O. S. 1921, we are required to ascertain, if possible, whether or not the errors alleged ‘probably resulted in the miscarriage of justice, or constitutes a substantial violation of the constitutional or statutory right’ before we set aside the judgment of the trial court and direct that a new trial be granted.””
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.