Darden v. Witham’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently April 2008 · most notably Glasscock v. Glasscock (1991), Nienow v. Nienow (1977)
44 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 Hoffman v. Commissioner · Darden v. Witham · Smith v. Smith · South Carolina State Highway Department v. Sharpe
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘A reviewing court is never justified in substituting its discretion for that of the trial court; in determining whether the lower court has abused its discretion, the question is not whether the reviewing court agrees with the court below, but, rather whether it believes that a judicial mind, in view of the relevant rules of law applicable to the particular case and on due consideration of all the circumstances, could reasonably have reached the conclusion of the court below, of which complaint is made.’ ” Quoting from 5A C. I. S. Appeal and Error, Section 1583b (1958).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The burden is upon the party appealing from the order to demonstrate the trial court abused its discretion. An “abuse of discretion” may be found by this Court where the appellant shows that the conclusion reached by the lower court was without reasonable factual support, resulted in prejudice to the right of appellant, and, therefore, amounted to an error of law.”
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.