Schmerfeld v. Hendry’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently June 1999 · most notably Nielson v. Flashberg (1966), E. L. Jones Construction Co. v. Noland (1970)
46 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 Ruth v. Rhodes · Sadler v. Arizona Flour Mills Co. · Southern Arizona Freight Lines, Ltd. v. Jackson · Consolidated Arizona Smelting Co. v. Egich · City of Prescott v. Sumid
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... a driver is not required to anticipate the sudden appearance of children in his pathway under ordinary circumstances.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Rosen v. Knaub · Rosen v. Knaub““ * * * Plaintiff made no objection to the statement at the, time, which if made would have given the trial court the opportunity to instruct the jury to disregard the remarks. The general rule is that when no objection is made at the •time the remarks were uttered the error, if any, is waived. (Authority cited.) '“This court has held: ‘ * * * (T)he usual practice requires objection to be made at the time, and that the court be requested to admonish the jury to disregard the improper conduct or an appellate tribunal will not consider it.’ (Cases cited.) (Emphasis Theirs.) ‘The presumption is that an admonition to the jury by the court will remove the effect of the improper remarks. Unless, therefore, it appears that the misconduct was of so serious a nature that no admonition or instruction by the court could undo the damage, a failure to make timely objection is a waiver of error.’ ” (Cases cited.) 74 Ariz. at 161 , 245 P.2d at 421 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The supervision of trials is committed to the trial court, and in matters involving the conduct of counsel, as well as other trial matters, unless it clearly appears that some prejudice has resulted, we think we should defer to the decision and judgment of the trial court. That court had the whole picture before it and was better qualified to pass on the question, and having done so, by denial of the motion for new trial, we accept its decision and judgment.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mahoney v. Frost
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.