Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 17 McCanless 147 - Smith v. Parker

Smith v. Parker’s Empirical Analysis

1963

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
1
states following
November 2011
most recently cited

26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently November 2011 · most notably Ladd Ex Rel. Ladd v. Honda Motor Co. (1996), In Re Estate of Elam (1987)

26 state decisions

160196319701980199020002010decided

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 Cantrell v. Burnett & Henderson Co. · Harbison v. Briggs Bros. Paint Mfg. Co. · Berry v. Foster · Masson v. Anderson · Clark v. Thomas

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

  1. ““* * * This Court a long time ago in Anderson v. Masson, 62 Tenn. 290, 298, 299 , said: ‘We have held that an order of consolidation simply has no other effect than to hear the cases thus consolidated at the same time, but that the issues remain precisely on the pleadings as they were before, and between the same parties, and are to be determined exactly as if the cases had been separately. ’ Thus it is that there is no error in the trial court singling out one particular case to be determined before the others, if in his judgment after hearing all the proof this is the pivotal case. As here of course when these cases were first consolidated the trial judge didn’t know what was going to develop in the proof afterwards. The jury in this particular case was given a correct general charge and returned a general verdict in the form of this special verdict for the aid of the court in these other cases. This verdict on its face embraced a finding of all facts which were required to render a judgment in behalf of the defendants. The Court of Appeals agrees on this feature of the case. “This verdict complies with the- rule as laid down in Harbison v. Briggs Bros. Paint Mfg. Co., 209 Tenn. 534 , 354 S.W.2d 464 , wherein this Court held that a special verdict in lieu of a general verdict must find all the ultimate facts in issue in order to form a basis of a judgment to be rendered. This was done herein.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Even if a portion of the judge's charge might be objectionable, if it is explained and corrected in other parts of the charge so that the jury will not be mislead, this will not be reversible error.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.