Oventrop v. Bi-State Development Agency’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently February 2011 · most notably 84 Cal. App. 3d 771 - Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978), Delaporte v. Robey Building Supply, Inc. (1991)
30 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 Skadal v. Brown · McConnell v. Pic-Walsh Freight Company · Hamilton v. Slover · Cook v. Cox · Zipp v. Gasen's Drug Stores, 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The whole purpose of requiring that a motion for new trial be presented prior to an appeal, is to afford the trial court an opportunity to correct any mistakes that were made during the trial. If the court believes or is persuaded that errors on questions of law occurred, it may so rule and if justice requires, grant a new trial. [It] may also consider a second time, its rulings on discretionary matters and if it believes its discretion was not wisely exercised and that prejudice to the losing party resulted, may order a new trial.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Thompson v. Rozeboom““Generally, a deposition is not to be read in evidence when the deponent is present, except as an admission against the witness’ interest or to impeach his testimony.” Oventrop v. Bi-State Development Agency, 521 S.W.2d 488, 494 (Mo. App.1975). (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wyatt v. Bearden
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.