Hudson v. Blanchard’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently November 2004
16 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 Arizona & New Mexico Railway Co. v. Clark · Roeser v. Pease · City of Altus v. Martin · Fulsom-Morris Coal & Mining Co. v. Mitchell · American Bankers' Ins. Co. v. Hopkins
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * In Taylor v. Davis, 199 Okl. 260 , 185 P.2d 444 , paragraph 2 of the syllabus states: “ ‘As a general rule, the exclusion of evidence in the trial court will not be reviewed on appeal unless a proper offer of the excluded evidence is made and included in the record.’ “See also 4 C.J.S., Appeal and Error § 291b, and cases collected in the foot notes.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Barbe v. Barbe
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.