Lee v. Daniel’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably Tate-Smith v. Cupples (2003), Quarles v. Courtyard Gardens Health and Rehabilitation LLC (2016)
46 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 Myrick v. Myrick · Sera v. State · Skokos v. Skokos · Forrest Construction, Inc. v. Milam · National Bank of Commerce v. HCA Health Services of Midwest, Inc.
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, we point out that, when a motion for new trial has been deemed denied in accordance with Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 4(b) (1), the only appealable matter is the original judgment or order. See Monk v. Farmers Ins. Co., 290 Ark. 38 , 716 S.W.2d 201 (1986). This court has also repeatedly held that an objection first made in a motion for new trial is not timely. For example, in Warnock v. Warnock, 336 Ark. 506 , 988 S.W.2d 7 (1999), this court declined to reach an equal protection argument, holding that it would not address a constitutional issue if it was not brought to the trial court’s attention for a ruling during trial or at some point prior to the entry of final judgment. In Selph v. State, 264 Ark. 197 , 570 S.W.2d 256 (1978), this court noted that the reason for requiring an objection before the trial court is to discourage “sandbagging” on the part of lawyers who might otherwise take a chance on a favorable result, and subsequently raise a constitutional claim if the gamble did not pay off. Selph, 264 Ark. at 204 , 570 S.W.2d 256 . See also Wilson v. Wilson, 270 Ark. 485 , 606 S.W.2d 56 (1980); Hodges v. State, 27 Ark. App. 154 , 767 S.W.2d 541 (1989) (allowing a party to raise an objection for the first time in a motion for new trial would give them “license to he behind the log,” waiting to see if they obtain an adverse verdict before complaining about any alleged irregularities).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“. . . This court gives due deference to the superior position of the trial judge to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be accorded their testimony. Pyle v. Sayers, 344 Ark. 354 , 39 S.W.3d 774 (2001). Further, it is within the province of the trier offact to resolve conflicting testimony. Myrick v. Myrick, 339 Ark. 1 , 2 S.W.3d 60 (1999).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“a finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, we are left on the entire evidence with a firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
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.