Nichols v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 256 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 264 later decisions — most recently September 2010 · most notably 3 Cal. 3d 875 - Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971), 9 Cal. 3d 51 - Stevens v. Parke, Davis & Co. (1973)
6 federal appellate · 256 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 3 Cal. 2d 427 - Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co. · 21 Cal. 2d 654 - Hicks v. Reis · 17 Cal. 2d 679 - Grolemund v. Cafferata · 48 Cal. App. 2d 762 - Falk v. Falk · Raggio v. Mallory
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 264 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is an elementary, but often overlooked principle of law, that when a verdict is attacked as being unsupported, the power of the appellate court begins and ends with a determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the conclusion reached by the jury. When two or more inferences can be reasonably deduced from the facts, the reviewing court is without power to substitute its deductions for those of the trial court. (Citing cases.) ””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“This province of the trial court to resolve 'conflicting evidence or conflicting inferences' and to reach a conclusion that will not be disturbed 'on appeal if some substantial evidence or reasonable inference' lends support thereto (Security-First National Bank v. Bruder, 44 Cal.App.2d 767, 772 [ 113 P.2d 3 ]) was forcefully declared in the recent case of Hicks v. Reis, 21 Cal.2d 654 , at pages 659-660 [ 134 P.2d 788 ]: 'The trier of the facts is the exclusive judge of the credibility of the witnesses. ( 1847, Code Civ. Proc.) While this same section declares that a witness is presumed to speak the truth, it also declares that "This presumption, however, may be repelled by the manner in which he testifies, by the character of his testimony ... or his motives, or by contradictory evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wolfsen v. Hathaway““ * * * whenever any real or personal property, or any interest therein or encumbrance thereon is acquired by a married woman by an instrument in writing the presumption is that title is thereby vested in her as her separate property. * * * The presumptions in this section mentioned, are conclusive in favor of any person dealing in good faith and for valuable consideration with such married woman * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Overton v. Benton
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.