Kurn v. Counts’s Empirical Analysis
1945
Citation profile
86 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently July 2009 · most notably Fuentes v. Tucker (1947), Smith v. Smith (1950)
86 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 Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Wilkes · Johnson v. Louisville N. R. Co. · Richmond & Danville Railroad v. Freeman · United States H. & A. Ins. v. Goin · Allen v. Standard Ins.
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It seems to us that the requirement of the rule that objection be made at trial is where there is a certain, piece of evidence or bit of testimony which shows the variance and is not admissible -for other necessary purposes. When that is not the situation, and the evidence which shows the variance consists on a summation of it, or inferences drawn from it in the course of the trial, and it is all admissible for other purposes, and therefore not subject to objection and exclusion on account of the variance, the rule should be held to be complied with if the general charge is requested, and the attention of the court is directed to the specific nature of the variance and what makes it so. But a general statement to the court that it is requested on account of a variance is not specific enough. Carter v. Shugarman, supra ( 197 Ala. 577 , 73 So. 119 ). It follows that the variance was not here properly presented to the trial judge under Rule 34, supra (Rule 34, Circuit Court Practice, Code of 1940; Tit. 7 Appendix).” [Parenthesis supplied.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ * * * It must so greatly preponderate as clearly to convince us that the verdict is wrong and unjust, contrary to the opinion of the trial judge in denying the motion for a new trial. “The general rule in that respect, when the trial judge refuses to grant a new trial on that ground, is that 'where there was evidence which if believed justified the verdict, motion for a new trial was properly overruled.’ Johnson v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 240 Ala. 219 (12), 198 So. 350, 351 ; Nashville, C. & St. L. Rwy. Co. v. Prince, 212 Ala. 499 , 103 So. 463 ; 15 Ala.Dig., New Trial, «=>70, 71.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Myers v. Evans“that counsel for plaintiff did not have any further burden in that respect, and he was not authorized to introduce prejudicial matters to prove an admitted fact.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Fuentes v. Tucker
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.