DeWitty v. Decker’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently July 2007 · most notably ABC Builders, Inc. v. Phillips (1981), Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Donahue (1983)
2 federal appellate · 31 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 44 Cal. 2d 839 - Lynch v. Birdwell · 10 Cal. 2d 519 - Brown v. Regan · Wall v. Van Meter · Fischer v. Howard · District Hauling & Construction Co. v. Argerakis
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e do not think it harsh or unreasonable to require a litigant, when an opportunity is afforded during the trial, timely to bring a matter such as here to the attention of the trial court in order that it might be corrected, and failing in this that he shall not be heard here to complain. To hold otherwise would seem unfair to the jury, to the trial court, and to the other litigants, to say nothing of the unnecessary loss of time and expense.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The matter of waiver is grounded, among other things, on the proposition that jury trials are time-consuming and costly proceedings and while a litigant is entitled to a fair trial, certain it is that he has responsibilities to assist the trial court in bringing about such a result. It will not do to permit a litigant to remain mute and speculate on the outcome of a jury trial on the record made with knowledge of irregularities or improprieties therein that might readily and easily have been corrected during the trial and then, when misfortune comes his way, to attempt to set the invited result aside by way of a new trial because of such matters. It is not fitting for the trial court or this court knowingly to reward or condone such conduct. As so aptly stated by Judge Rossman in Fischer v. Howard, 201 Or. 426 , 271 P.2d 1059, 1063 , 49 A.L.R.2d 1301 , a loser should not by design get `two bites at the cherry.'" DeWitty v. Decker, Wyo., 383 P.2d 734, 736 (1963).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““As a general rule, the failure of a jury to award general damages, in the face of an award for substantial medical and hospital expense, results at least in an improper or irregular verdict. The authorities that we have examined on the subject are practically unanimous in so holding. Webster v. City of Colfax, 250 Iowa 181 , 93 N.W.2d 91, 92 ; Vittitow v. Carpenter, Ky., 291 S.W.2d 34, 35 ; Davidson v. Schneider, Mo., 349 S.W.2d 908, 913 ; Hallford v. Schumacher, Okl., 323 P.2d 989, 992 ; Edmonds v. Erion, 221 Or. 104 , 350 P.2d 700 ; Cohen v. Food Fair Stores, Inc., 190 Pa.Super. 620 , 155 A.2d 441, 444 ; and Smith v. Bullock, Tex.Civ.App., 317 S.W.2d 232, 234 . See also Annotation 20 A.L.R. 276 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Blair · Smith v. Uhrich
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.