Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 254 Mont. 152 - Hansen v. Hansen

Hansen v. Hansen’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
states following
February 2026
most recently cited

22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently February 2026

22 state decisions

1401992200020102020decided

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 Kitchen Krafters, Inc. v. Eastside Bank · Cooper v. Rosston · Christensen v. Britton · Mountain West Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. Girton · Frisnegger v. Gibson

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

  1. “Our scope of review of jury verdicts is necessarily very limited. This Court will not reverse a jury verdict which is supported by substantial credible evidence. This Court has defined substantial credible evidence as evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The evidence may be inherently weak and conflicting, yet it may still be considered substantial. It is well established that if the evidence is conflicting, it is within the province of the jury to determine the weight and credibility to be afforded the evidence. Finally, upon reviewing a jury verdict to determine if substantial credible evidence exists to support the verdict, this Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.