Long v. Forbes’s Empirical Analysis
1943
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently May 2012 · most notably Mobil Coal Producing, Inc. v. Parks (1985), Allen v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (1985)
2 federal appellate · 48 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 Casper Nationak Bank v. Curry · Reynier v. Associated Dyeing & Printing Co. · Norton v. Inhabitants of Brookline · Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Arbogast · American Nat. Ins. Co. v. Teague
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * The findings of fact, however, are subject to review by the trial judge who, like the jury, has had the benefit of observing the demeanor and deportment of the witnesses. If he concludes that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict, he should grant a new trial, under principles stated in Kester v. Wagner, 22 Wyo. 512 , 145 P. 748 . * * *””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““The right of trial by jury includes the right to have the jury pass upon questions, of fact by determining the credibility of witnesses and the weight of conflicting evidence. . . . After the trial judge has given the verdict his approval by denying a new trial, and the case is brought here for review, we must accept the verdict as a final and conclusive finding of the facts if there is any substantial evidence to support it, although we may feel that we would have come to a different conclusion. ...””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Burton v. Valentine“The cases seem to hold that full-time employment does not mean that the employee may not have some time that he may use in his personal affairs, or in other business, without breach of the employment contract.”
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.