Murdock v. Ratliff’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently March 2019
14 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 Kidd v. Early · Summey v. Cauthen · North Carolina National Bank v. Burnette · Rappaport v. Days Inn of America, Inc. · Sowers v. Marley
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in order to justify granting a motion for a directed verdict in favor of the party with the burden of proof, the evidence must so clearly establish the fact in issue that no reasonable inferences to the contrary can be drawn.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) Where [a] non-movant establishes proponent’s case by admitting the truth of the basic facts upon which the claim of proponent rests. (2) Where the controlling evidence is documentary and non-movant does not deny the authenticity or correctness of the documents. (3) Where there are only latent doubts as to the credibility of oral testimony and the opposing party has failed to point to specific areas of impeachment and contradiction. [W]hile credibility is generally for the jury, courts set the outer limits of it by preliminarily determining whether the jury is at liberty to disbelieve the evidence presented by movant. Needless to say, the instances where credibility is manifest will be rare, and courts should exercise restraint in removing the issue of credibility from the jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(1) Where non-movant establishes proponent’s case by admitting the truth of the basic facts upon which the claim of proponent rests. (2) Where the controlling evidence is documentary and nonmovant does not deny the authenticity or correctness of the documents. (3) Where there are only latent doubts as to the credibility of oral testimony and the opposing party has failed to point to specific areas of impeachment and contradictions.”
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.