Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 363 P2D 849 - Hill v. Anderson

Hill v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis

1961

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
March 1980
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently March 1980

2 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

60196119701980decided

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 Mires v. Hogan · Mullen v. Thaxton · St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. v. Mountain Park Stock Farm Co. · Gaines v. Gaines Bros. Co. · Whitney v. Whitney

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. “. A motion for judgment on the pleadings is in the nature of a demurrer. It tests the sufficiency of the pleadings and presents a question of law as to whether the facts as alleged are sufficient to state a cause of action or a defense. Hill v. Black Gold Petroleum Co., 183 Okl. 468 , 83 P.2d 164 . Such motions are not favored by the courts, and pleadings asserted to state no cause of action or defense are to be construed liberally in favor of the pleader. Hendrix v. Redfern, 204 Okl. 613 , 232 P.2d 926 . Every legal intendment is indulged in support of the challenged pleading. If such pleading may be construed to state a cause of action, a motion for judgment on the pleadings cannot be sustained merely because some allegations appear indefinite or express pure legal conclusions. First National Bank v. Humphreys, 66 Okl. 186 , 168 P. 410 . A motion for judgment on the pleadings is not directed at the form of the pleadings, but goes to their substance. It does not assail indefiniteness, uncertainty or clerical errors, and can raise only such questions as may be presented on a general demurrer. Issues of fact cannot be resolved on such a motion. A judgment on the pleadings is not rendered because of an absence of proof, but because of a lack of issues of fact. Only when the pleadings present no material issues of fact, the question of which party is entitled to a judgment becomes one of law. Mires v. Hogan, 79 Okl. 233 , 192 P. 811 ; Johnson v. Eagle, Okl., 355 P.2d 868 .”
    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.