Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 784 P2D 1060 - Sellars v. McCullough

Sellars v. McCullough’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
1
states following
January 2026
most recently cited

23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently January 2026

23 state decisions

8019891990200020102020decided

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 McCorkle v. Great Atlantic Insurance Co. · Miller v. Price · Walker v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. · Wetsel v. Independent School District I-1 · Dunnington v. Loeser

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

  1. “The trial court’s duty is to state the law correctly, but not to frame the issues. If the nisi prius judge does not accurately state the law, “fundamental error” occurs, which is reviewable even if no exception has been taken.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"A party excepting to the giving of instructions, or the refusal thereof, shall not be required to file a formal bill of exceptions; but it shall be sufficient to make objection thereto by dictating into the record in open court, out of the hearing of the jury, after the reading of all instructions, the number of the particular instruction that was requested, refused and is excepted to, or the number of the particular instruction given by the court that is excepted to. Provided, further, that the court shall furnish copies of the instructions to the plaintiff and defendant prior to the time said instructions are given by the court."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “prejudicial misstatement of the law appearing on the face of an instruction constitutes fundamental error reviewable even in the absence of an exception taken pursuant to § 578.”
    2 later decisions 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.