Mingo v. Extrand’s Empirical Analysis
1930
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently May 1966
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 O'Malley v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co. · Kelly v. Southern Minnesota Railway Co. · Dahl v. Valley Dredging Co. · Stallman v. Shea · Hall v. Chicago, Burlington & Northern Railroad
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.
““* * * Whether errors in the charge were prejudicial and likely to or did mislead or influence the jury are questions which the trial court is in a better position to determine than is the appellate court. Where there is error in the charge and the trial court deems such error prejudicial and ground for a new trial, it should require a clear showing of error or abuse of discretion to warrant this court in reversing.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Flitton v. Daleki
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.