Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 41 SD 96 - Hansen v. Boots

Hansen v. Boots’s Empirical Analysis

1918

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
February 1926
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Shields' Admrs. v. Rowland · Phillips v. United States Benevolent Society · L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Payne · Jordan v. Massey · McClendon v. Bank of Advance

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

  1. ““It is * * * alleged by respondent that whether the conduct * * * was such as to warrant the granting of a new trial was a matter of judicial discretion for the trial court, and that, that court having refused to grant a new trial, this court should not interfere. Of course, this is the general rule; but, where it is apparent that the trial court’s discretion has been abused, this court should not hesitate to interfere.””
    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.