Warner v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently December 2014
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 Herbert J. Roberts v. Norman M. Ross, Jr · Louis Dreyfus & Cie. v. Panama Canal Co. · Edward S. Mesle v. Kea Steamship Corporation, (Haenn Ship Ceiling & Refitting Corporation)
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.
“"One purpose of requiring findings of fact is to aid the appellate court by affording it a clear understanding of the ground or basis of the decision of the trial court. Another purpose is to make definite just what is decided by the case in order to apply the doctrines of estoppel and res judicata in future cases. Finally, and possibly most important, the requirements that findings of fact be made is intended to evoke care on the part of the trial judge in ascertaining the facts." [Emphasis added].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““We disapprove of the practice of a trial judge’s uncritically accepting proposed findings, but this unfortunate practice does not erase the ‘clearly erroneous’ rule.” [Underscoring ours.]”
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.