Hansen v. Cunningham’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently September 1985
19 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 Spruce v. Chicago, R. I. & P. RY. CO. · Russell v. Margo · Aldridge v. Patterson · Kurn v. Cochran · Bates v. Winkle
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As has been indicated in previous-cases, if allowed the unbridled substitution of his own opinion for that of the jury, he could in effect partially abrogate both our jury system and right of appeal by repeatedly setting aside successive verdicts and granting new trials until a verdict was returned that conformed to his own personal idea of an adequate recovery.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The discretion of the trial court in granting a new trial is so broad that its action in so doing will not be disturbed on appeal unless the record shows clearly that the court erred in its view of some pure, simple, and unmixed question of law or that it has acted arbitrarily or capriciously. “The mere fact that the evidence adduced upon the trial was such that reasonable minds might differ as to the existence of primary negligence does not constitute a sufficient showing that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Foltz v. Nicholson“"Where necessary, on appeal from order granting new trial, reviewing court will examine entire record to determine whether trial court, in granting new trial, abused its discretion, acted arbitrarily, or erred on some unmixed question of law. "Where reviewing court determines that trial court acted arbitrarily, clearly abused its discretion, or erred on some unmixed question of law in granting new trial, order granting new trial will be reversed."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Neely v. Morris
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.