Seorum v. Marudas’s Empirical Analysis
1944
Citation profile
3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1962
3 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 Marty v. Nordby · Barrie v. Northern Assurance Co. · Security State Bank v. Brecht · Brown v. Minnesota Thresher Manufacturing Co. · Miller v. County of Steele
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * The statute does not leave the appealability of an order granting a new trial to inferences that it is based upon errors of law alone. Pust v. Holtz, 134 Minn. 266 , 159 N. W. 564 . Trial courts should comply with the statute strictly by expressly stating that the order for a new trial is based exclusively upon errors occurring at the trial, where such is the case. It is not necessary to single out the errors but, to make the order appealable, the trial court must make it appear that no element of judicial discretion was exercised, and that can only appear from such a statement as the statute prescribes.” (Italics supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Doerner v. English
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.