Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 214 S.C. 343 - McCrae v. McCoy

McCrae v. McCoy’s Empirical Analysis

1949

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
2
states following
May 1986
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 1986

6 state decisions

2019491950196019701980decided

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 Gordon v. Rothberg · Horsford v. Carolina Glass Co. · Entzminger v. Seigler · Collins v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. · Cox v. American Oil Co.

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.

  1. ““ ‘The general rule is that where the jury is cautioned and instructed to disregard the incompetent testimony, the judgment will ordinarily not be reversed. Usually, it is only where counsel persists in attempting to mislead and prejudice the jury by asking questions known to be out of order; or where a court of review can see that, notwithstanding the efforts of the presiding judge to remove the prejudicial effects of such conduct, an injury may have resulted to the other party, that a judgment should be reversed on that ground alone. Of course, where the damage done is ineradicable, the presence of good faith or inadvertence is of little moment. Necessarily, each case must be judged on its own facts and circumstances.’ McCrae v. McCoy, 214 S. C. 343, 52 S. E. (2d) 403, 404 .” “It is well settled that the granting of a motion for a mistrial by reason of anything occurring during the trial of a case is in the sound discretion of the trial Judge, and his ruling thereabout will not be disturbed unless there has been an abuse of discretion. McCrae v. McCoy, supra; Gordon v. Rothberg, 213 S. C. 492, 50 S. E. (2d) 202 ; Haselden v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 214 S. C. 410, 53 S. E. (2d) 60 ; Mock v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 227 S. C. 245, 87 S. E. (2d) 830 .””
    2 later decisions 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.