Nelson v. Altizer’s Empirical Analysis
1943
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently February 1965
13 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 Stewart v. Stewart · Manning v. Foster · Gould v. Hill · Craddock v. Barnes · Whitney v. Dewey
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is true, that the court must find on all the material issues tendered by the pleadings. Cheesbrough v. Jensen, 62 Idaho 255, 257 , 109 P.2d 889 ; Sec. 7-302, I.C.A. The findings in all cases must cover the material issues necessary to support a judgment. Uhrlaub v. McMahon, 15 Idaho 346 , 97 P. 784 ; Bentley v. Kasiska, 49 Idaho 416 , 288 P. 897 . This rule, however, is subject to a number of variations. “It has been held that, in order to raise the question as to failure of the court to find on an issue, the aggrieved party must call the matter to the attention of the trial court, either by a requested finding, motion, or otherwise; and that failure to do so is a waiver of the error, if any has been committed. Mine & Smelter Supply Co. v. Idaho, Consol. Mines Co., 20 Idaho 300, 310 , 118 P. 301 ; Gould v. Hill, 43 Idaho 93 , 251 P. 167 ; Reid v. Keator, 55 Idaho 172, 184 , 39 P.2d 926 ; Mitchell v. Munn Warehouse Co., 59 Idaho 661, 674 , 86 P.2d 174 . “There is another variation from the rule which is recognized, to the effect, that failure to find on all the issues of the case will not result in a reversal of the judgment, if the findings made by the trial court are inconsistent with the theory advanced by the appellant or presented by his pleadings and are, standing alone, sufficient to support the judgment. In other- words, if the findings already made are inconsistent with the allegations and theory of appellant’s case, the presumption will be indulged, that if findi”
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.