Smedra v. Stanek’s Empirical Analysis
187 F.2d 892 · 1951
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently June 2006 · most notably Kiernan v. Van Schaik (1965), Grace United Methodist Church v. City of Cheyenne (2006)
18 federal appellate · 4 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 McAfee v. Travis Gas Corp. · London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Woelfle · Rains v. Rains · Salvitti v. Throppe · Rice v. Tissaw
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Appellant also complains of the coun’s refusal to question the jurors on voir dire with respect to any interest they might have in the United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company. The scope of inquiry on voir dire is largely discretionary with the trial court. There is no showing in the record that any juror knew that the United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company was interested in the suit or defending it. Under these circumstances it cannot be said that the court’s refusal to examine the jury with respect to this matter was such an abuse of discretion as to require a reversal.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lee v. Swyden
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.