Smith v. Knutson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

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

1. “* * * `The most direct and positive testimony may be completely demolished by circumstantial evidence, or overcome in the minds of a jury or the mind of a court by the establishment of other facts inconsistent therewith.' In Paulsen v. Modern Woodmen of America, 21 N.D. 235, 243, 130 N.W. 231, 234, this Court said: 28 "`Ordinarily the question of what inferences are deducible from the evidence is peculiarly a question for the jury, and it is only in rare instances that the court is justified in determining such question as a matter of law. If it can be said that reasonable men may fairly differ as to the inferences to be deduced from all the circumstances disclosed, it is a proper case for the jury.'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Steel v. Downs · Schultz & Lindsay Construction Co. v. Erickson

2. ““In determining this issue the court must adopt the view of the evidence which is most favorable to the opposing party.” In Leonard v. North Dakota Co-Operative Wood Marketing Ass’n, 72 N.D. 310 , 6 N.W.2d 576, 579 , the court says: “The jury having returned a verdict for the plaintiff is presumed to have determined all questions of fact within the jury’s province in favor of the plaintiff.” Considering the evidence in the light of these rules, can this court say as a matter of law that the defendant was entitled to a directed verdict ? May not reasonable men differ on the conclusion to be drawn from the facts shown in evidence ? Do the circumstances not dispute the evidence of the defendants ? If, under the evidence, reasonable men may honestly differ, the ultimate question is one of fact for the jury. Smith v. Knutson, 76 N.D. 375 , 36 N.W. 2d 323 (1949).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wolfe v. Light

3. “Contributory negligence, as well as negligence of the defendant, are questions for the jury in a case at law, unless the conceded facts from which the inference must be drawn admit of only one conclusion. If the facts are such that different, impartial minds might fairly draw different conclusions from them, they should be submitted to the jury, and are only for the court when such that fair-minded men might draw only one conclusion from them.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wolfe v. Light