Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 21 Okla. 511 - McAdams v. Latham

McAdams v. Latham’s Empirical Analysis

1908

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
1
states following
October 1969
most recently cited

38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently October 1969 · most notably Morgan v. Karcher (1921), Pennsylvania Co. v. Potter (1923)

38 state decisions

1701908191019201930194019501960decided

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 Hemme v. School District No. 4 · Alliance Trust Co. v. Barrett · St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. v. Mossman

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

  1. ““The trial courts, after judgments or decrees or orders have once become final, and the term at which the same was rendered or entered has expired, should be very slow to vacate such judgments, decrees, or orders, especially when the party seeking such action has failed to avail himself of the right to have such action reviewed by the appellate court. Such judgments, decrees, or orders should never be vacated, except where the party seeking such vacation has complied substantially with the provisions of the law provided for the same.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““ ‘It will be remembered that the original motion for the new trial was filed at the term at which the original trial was had' and upon grounds authorized by the statute. Civ. Code, § 306, subd. 3; section 568, subd. 7. It is claimed, however, by the plaintiff that the motion was not filed within the proper time. Now, it is true that the motion was not filed within three days after the decision of the court; but still the defendant attempted to show, and the court evidently found-the showing sufficient, that the defendant was unavoidably prevented from making an appearance on the day of trial and defending the action, or from filing its motion for a new trial at an earlier date than it did file the same. We think this is sufficient. Civ. Code, § 308. The motion would have also been sufficient under subdivision 7, § 563, of the Civil Code, if it had been put in the form of a petition; but, as it-was made at the same term of the court, and so soon after the trial, and as the plaintiff had as ample opportunity to defend against the facts set up in the motion and set up in the defendant’s affidavits as he would have had if the facts had been set up in a petition, probably the fact that the application was in the form of a motion, and not in the form of a petition, is not very material. Upon the whole, we think the ruling of the district court upon the motion should be sustained. It must be remembered that a trial court for the purpose of administering justice has a very wide and ”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““The plaintiff failing to appeal from the order granting a new trial, after the expiration of the term at which final judgment was rendered, there must be a substantial compliance 'with the. statute to give the court further jurisdiction to modify, vacate, or set aside any judgment rendered at a preceding term.””
    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.