Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 27 COLO 473 - Beals v. Cone

Beals v. Cone’s Empirical Analysis

1900

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
12
states following
February 1989
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 42 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently February 1989 · most notably McGregor v. Provident Trust Co. (1935), Conway v. Fabian (1939)

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 42 state decisions — followed in 12 states

170190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Hammer v. Garfield Mining & Milling Co. · Iron Silver Min Co v. Cheesman · People v. Brown · Martin v. Zellerbach · Supreme Lodge, Knights of Honor v. Davis

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

  1. ““At the conclusion of the instructions given by the court of its own motion, which embraced the one under consideration, an exception in this form was preserved: ‘ To the giving of which instructions, and to each and every thereof, the plaintiff by his counsel then and there duly excepted. ’ This is equivalent to saving an exception to each instruction separately, but it cannot avail as against any instruction to which it is directed, which contains a correct statement of the law, because it is insufficient to point out that which is incorrect from that which is correct. ””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Newly discovered evidence which only goes to impeach the credit or character of a witness, is not sufficient ground for a new trial, except it is clear that such impeachment would have resulted in a different verdict.”
    1 later decision 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.