Flesner v. Cooper’s Empirical Analysis
1917
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently August 2010 · most notably Liberty National Bank & Trust Co. v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n (1955), Lacy v. Wozencraft (1940)
1 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 Cooper v. Flesner · Vickers v. Philip Carey Co. · Flesner v. Cooper · Roeser v. Pease · Brusha Et Ux. v. Board of Education of Oklahoma City
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The requisites of a motion for a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence have been stated by this court as follow®, to wit: “ ‘A rule of wide recognition regarding the granting of new trials on the ground of “newly discovered evidence” exacts that the evidence fulfill the following requirements: (1) It must be such as will probably change the result if a new trial be granted; (2) it must have been discovered since the trial; (3) it must be such as could not have been discovered before the trial (with) due diligence; (4) it must be material to the issue; (5) it must not be merely cumulative to the former evidence; (6) it must not be to merely impeach or contradict the former evidence.’ Vickers v. Philip Carey Co., 49 Okla. 231 , 151 P. 1023 , L. R. A. 1916C, 1155.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The essential elements of an ‘equitable estoppel’ are: First, there must be a false representation or concealment of facts. Second, it must have been made with knowledge, actual or constructive, of the real facts. Third, the party to whom it was made must have been without knowledge, or the means of knowledge, of the real facts Fourth, it must have been made with the intention that it should be acted upon. Fifth, the party to whom it was made must have relied on or acted upon it to his prejudice.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ ‘A motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence should be sustained, when it appears that the evidence, if produced, would probably produce a different result.’ Roeser v. Pease, 37 Okla. 222 , 131 P. 534 ; Burford v. Benton, 44 Okla. 283 , 144 P. 349 .””
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.