McCann v. McCann’s Empirical Analysis
1909
Citation profile
59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently September 1968 · most notably Alcorn v. Dennis (1909), Roberts v. Markham (1910)
59 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 Hunter Realty Co. v. Spencer · Lookabaugh v. Bowmaker · Saxon v. White · Brewer Stannard v. Black · Knaggs v. Mastin
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Where a cause is tried without the intervention of a jury, upon controverted questions of fact, and there is evidence reasonably tending to support the findings of the trial court, such findings will not be disturbed on the weight of the evidence, and when the finding is general it includes all facts necessary to support the claims of the party in whose favor the judgment is rendered, and upon appeal this court will not review the evidence, if it reasonably tends to support the issues upon which such finding is made, to determine the sufficiency thereof. Hunter Realty Co. et al. v. Spencer, 21 Okla. 155 , 95 Pac. 757 [17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 622]; Lookabaugh v. Bowmaker, 21 Okla. 489 , 96 Pac. 651 ; Saxon v. White, 21 Okla. 194 , 95 Pac. 783 ; Brewer v. Black, 5 Okla. 57 , 47 Pac. 1089 ; Meyer Bros. Drug Co. v. Kelley, 5 Okla. 118 , 47 Pac. 1065 ; Craggs et al. v. Earls, 8 Okla. 462 , 58 Pac. 637 ; Vandenburg v. Walton Lumber Co., 19 Okla. 169 , 92 Pac. 149 ; Gaffney v. Cline et al., 19 Okla. 197 , 91 Pac. 855 ; Dunlap v. Stannard, 19 Okla 232, 91 Pac. 845 .” (McCann v. McCann et al., 24 Okla. 271 , 103 Pac. 697 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““If the testimony had been of a substantive nature, and necessary to support in chief an affirmative material issue, and it appeared that there was a surprise that could not, with proper diligence, have been foreseen, the court should have granted a continuance; but when the evidence is only of an impeaching nature, and relates solely to reputation, that is a matter more largely addressed to the discretion of the court, and its decision, as a rule, on such matters will not be disturbed on review.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Johnston v. Shaffer
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.