Choukas v. Carras’s Empirical Analysis
1938
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently January 1989
6 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 Russell v. Stephens · Wilson v. Mills · Tacoma Hotel, Inc. v. Morrison Co., Inc. · Forsyth v. Davis · Jarvis v. Ireland
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““This case presents a situation where the court must consider definite positive testimony on the one hand, and on the other the opportunity for the execution of a fraudulent scheme. “In so holding, we are mindful of the rule frequently announced by this court that the finding of the trial court may not ordinarily be disturbed when founded on conflicting testimony. “We hold that the evidence produced by respondents at the trial was not legally sufficient to support the finding of fraud. No two cases of fraud rest upon exactly the same character of evidence, and consequently each must be determined on its own facts.””
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.