Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 217 ARK 1 - Connell v. Robinson

Connell v. Robinson’s Empirical Analysis

1950

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
July 1994
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently July 1994

13 state decisions

10019501960197019801990decided

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 Skillern v. Baker · Sykes v. Carmack · Pugh v. Camp · Smith v. Ryan · McCollum v. Graber

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

  1. ““It is well settled in Arkansas that the testimony of a party to an action is never regarded as undisputed in determining the legal sufficiency of thé evidence. * * * “This rule has been considered in two recent cases in which the question of retention of title in the sale of automobiles was in issue. In Sykes v. Carmack, 211 Ark. 828 , 202 S.W.2d 761 the question in a replevin suit was whether title had been reserved under an oral contract of conditional sale. Appellant Sykes, plaintiff therein, and his son testified that title was retained when the car was sold. The jury found otherwise. In answer to the contention that the verdict was contrary to the undisputed testimony, this court said in 211 Ark. at page 830 , 202 S.W.2d at page 763 in affirming the judgment: ‘Moreover the jury may not have credited the testimony that there was a reservation of the title. The interest of appellant and his son is such that their testimony may not be treated as undisputed, and this interest makes the truth of their testimony, although not disputed by any witness, a question of fact for the jury. In the case of Skillern v. Baker, 82 Ark. 86 , 100 S.W. 764 , 118 Am.St.Rep. 52 , 12 Ann.Cas. 243, it was held that the general rule that where an unimpeached witness testified distinctly and positively to a fact and is not contradicted, and there is no circumstance shown from which an inference against the fact testified to by the witness can be drawn, the fact may be taken as established and a v”
    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.