24 Ariz. App. 415 - Hendricks v. Simper’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently January 2010
1 federal appellate · 2 district · 14 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 Davis v. Weber · 12 Ariz. App. 562 - Cano v. Neill · Dansby v. Buck · Pass v. Stephens · 10 Ariz. App. 357 - Melvin v. Stevens
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A defendant’s motion for a directed verdict admits the truth of whatever evidence the opposing party has introduced and any inferences reasonably drawn therefrom. [Citation omitted]. On such a motion the evidence must be treated and viewed in a light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is sought. [Citation omitted]. The motion should be granted only where the evidence is not sufficient to support a contrary verdict or so weak that a court would feel constrained to set aside such a verdict on a motion for new trial.” 93 Ariz. at 314-15 , 380 P.2d at 609 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““It is well settled that mere mental weakness in the grantor does not invalidate a deed. To have that effect the mental power must be so far deteriorated or destroyed that the grantor is incapable ' of understanding in a reasonable degree and knowing the consequences of the instrument he executes.” Pass v. Stephens, 22 Ariz. 461 , 198 P. 712 (1921).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Nelson v. Nelson“[a] unilateral mistake induced by misrepresentations or contractual ambiguity may constitute grounds for avoiding a release.”
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.