McCune v. Neitzel’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably McVaney v. BAIRD, HOLM, McEACHEN (1991), Brown v. Farmers Mutual Insurance (1991)
56 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 Jones v. Taibbi · Newberry v. Allied Stores, Inc. · Newberry v. Allied Stores, Inc. · State v. Watkins · Crewdson v. Burlington Northern Railroad
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“On a motion for directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict, “the moving party is deemed to have admitted as true all the material and relevant evidence admitted which is favorable to the party against whom the motion is directed, and, further, the party against whom the motion is directed is entitled to the benefit of all proper inferences which can reasonably be deduced therefrom.” [Citations omitted.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In order to sustain a motion for directed verdict, the court resolves the controversy as a matter of law and may do so only when the facts are such that reasonable minds can draw but one conclusion. ... In considering the evidence for the purpose of a motion for directed verdict, the party against whom a motion is made is entitled to have the benefit of every inference which can reasonably be drawn from the evidence. If there is any evidence in favor of the party against whom the motion is made, the case may not be decided as a matter of law____ On a motion for directed verdict . . . “ ‘the moving party is deemed to have admitted as true all the material and relevant evidence admitted which is favorable to the party against whom the motion is directed, and, further, the party against whom the motion is directed is entitled to the benefit of all proper inferences which can reasonably be deduced therefrom.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In recognition of the interests involved in a defamation action and the difficulty of proof in this area, this court has declared that in an action for libel or slander, the amount of damages is almost' entirely in the jury’s discretion. Hall v. Vakiner, 124 Neb. 741 , 248 N.W. 70 (1933). In an action for defamation, the damages which may be recovered are (1) general damages for harm to reputation [citations omitted]; (2) special damages [citations omitted]; (3) damages for mental suffering [citation omitted]; and (4) if none of these are proven, nominal damages [citations omitted].”
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.