Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 78 ND 278 - Hoffer v. Burd

Hoffer v. Burd’s Empirical Analysis

1951

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
5
states following
November 1993
most recently cited

1 district · 28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently November 1993 · most notably Alberts v. Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. (1963), State v. Archbold (1984)

1 district · 28 state decisions

11019511960197019801990decided

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.

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

  1. ““COMMENTS BY COUNSEL AND JUDGE “An attorney is an officer of the Court. It is his duty to present evidence on behalf of his client, to make such objections as he deems proper, and to argue fully his client’s cause. However, the comments, statements, arguments, or other remarks of an attorney, are not to be considered as evidence in this case. “If counsel or I make any remarks concerning the evidence which you find are not warranted by the evidence, you should wholly disregard them and rely upon your own recollection or observation. If counsel make any remarks as to the law which are not warranted by these instructions, you should wholly disregard such remarks.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"The granting of a mistrial is an extreme remedy and voids all proceedings taken in the case up to that time. All the authorities agree that the practice should be resorted to only `when further proceedings therewith would be productive of great hardship or manifest injustice'. Usborne v. Stephenson, 36 Or. 328 , 58 P. 1103, 1104 , 48 L.R.A. 432, 437 . In such cases only where something has happened to make it apparent that justice will not be served by continuance of the trial is the granting of a motion for a mistrial the proper remedy." Hoffer v. Burd, 78 N.D. 278 , 49 N.W.2d 282, 292 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““Where the defendant alleges misconduct on the part of the state’s attorney in his argument to the jury, and relies on the same as ground for reversal, he must first seasonably object thereto and obtain a ruling from the trial court thereon, requesting the court to take action by reprimand to the counsel, instructions to the jury, or other suitable action . . . . ””
    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.