Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 62 NW2D 473 - Nicholson v. Roop

Nicholson v. Roop’s Empirical Analysis

1954

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
3
states following
January 1988
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently January 1988

2 federal appellate · 15 state decisions

801954196019701980decided

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 Foulke v. New York Consolidated Railroad · Turner v. Mellon · Jeppi v. Brockman Holding Co. · Miller v. Fano · 36 Cal. 2d 854 - Hughes v. Oreb

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

  1. ““Within ten days after the reception of a verdict, a party who has moved for a directed verdict may move to have the verdict and any judgment entered thereon set aside and to have judgment notwithstanding the verdict entered in accordance with his motion for a directed verdict, * *”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Now come the above named defendants, People’s Department Store', a corporation, Gordon Savran, and Haskel L. Cohodes, each of them having heretofore at the close of the testimony at the trial of the above-entitled action on the 16th day of February, 1954, moved the Court separately to direct,a verdict in favor of each of said defendants, which motions were objected to and were denied, and thereafter a verdict having been returned by the jury in favor of the plaintiff and against all of' said defendants, and each of said defendants do now move severally that a judgment be entered in favor of said defendants, and each of them, for a dismissal of plaintiff’s, aetjom, notwithstanding the verdict, or in the alter-, native that a’ new trial be granted, of said action, on the following grounds, to-wit: 1 “That the evidence at said trial wholly failed to show or establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence, or at all, that there was any want of probable cause for the commencement of criminal proceedings against one Har- old Long, and that in fact the evidence conclusively and without contradiction established, as a matter of law, that one Harold Long issued, executed and delivered to People’s Department Store a check for $25.00, on or about the 7th day of July, 1952, drawn on a bank in which the said Harold Long did not then, or at the time said check was presented for payment, have funds on deposit to meet said check, and that probable cause existed for the signing of a compla”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““ ‘The evidence wholly fails to show or to establish by a preponderance of the evidence any malice or. malicious intent on the part of the defendant, or any lack or want of probable cause and the defendant, First National Bank of Bismarck, moves that this Court direct the jury to return a verdict in its favor for a dismissal of plaintiff’s cause of action upon the same grounds and reasons that the plaintiff has failed to establish a cause of action against the defendant and has failed to prove any malice or malicious prosecution or lack of probable cause in the institution originating in the original criminal proceeding.’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.