Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 310 P.2d 375 - Croft v. Dodson

Croft v. Dodson’s Empirical Analysis

1957

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
September 1971
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently September 1971

11 state decisions

60195719601970decided

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 Shreve v. Cornell · Russell v. Margo · Hansen v. Cunningham · Browne v. Bassett · Landrum v. Ownby

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

  1. “"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."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"Then comes the ultimate question hereinbefore indicated. In such a case may a trial judge grant a new trial just because (as this judgment recites) he does not agree with the jury's verdict? We think a complete answer to this question is given in the recent opinion this Court promulgated in Hansen v. Cunningham, Okl., 285 P.2d 432 , and the cases therein cited. Therein it is clearly demonstrated that to grant a new trial in such a situation is an abuse of the sound legal discretion vested in the trial judge and is in derogation of our system of jurisprudence in which the jury is the trier of the facts. wok ock!”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““By virtue of Article XXIII, Section 6, of the Constitution of this State, contributory negligence is a question of fact which must at all times be left to the jury, and if there is any evidence of contributory negligence, or from which contributory negligence may be inferred or presumed, that issue must be resolved by the jury. Warren v. Layman, Okl., 267 P.2d 590 . If there be sufficient evidence to require the question of contributory negligence to be submitted to the jury, its verdict on that question is conclusive. Fay v. Brewer, 181 Okl. 554 , 75 P.2d 425 .””
    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.