Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 240 Iowa 715 - Swift v. Petersen

Swift v. Petersen’s Empirical Analysis

1949

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
2
states following
September 2002
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently September 2002

9 state decisions

501949195019601970198019902000decided

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 Pleasants v. Fant · Fried v. Fisher · Smith v. Coutant · In Re Trust of Lunt · Weinrich v. Hawley

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

  1. ““It is true, as argued by appellee, that since a jury was waived the findings of the court have the force of a verdict, but it does not follow that where the evidence does not sustain the findings we must accept them. Whether the trial be to the jury or to the court, without a jury, the correct doctrine is well stated in Anfenson v. Banks, supra, Justice Weaver speaking, where it is said at page 1119 of 180 Iowa, page 625 of 163 N.W.: “ ‘The true rule in this, as in the trial of other jury issues, is that, at the close of all the testimony, if, to the judicial mind, the evidence, tested by the law of the issues and the rules of evidence, is not sufficient to justify a jury fairly and reasonably in finding a verdict for the plaintiff, the court should so direct the jury.’ Citing Pleasants v. Fant, 89 U. S. 116 , 22 L. Ed. 780 .””
    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.