Smith v. Moroney’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
72 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably Dawson v. Withycombe (2007), Pima County v. Bilby (1960)
72 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 General Petroleum Corp. v. Barker · Young Mines Co., Ltd. v. Citizens' State Bk. · O'Shea v. Pattison-Mcgrath Dental Supplies, Inc. · Coker v. Moose · Braunschweiger v. Waits
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We will not disturb an order granting a new trial unless the probative force of the evidence clearly demonstrates that the trial court’s action is wrong and unjust and therefore unreasonable and a manifest abuse of discretion.””
11 later decisions quote this exact passage““We have examined the cases * * * and have come to this conclusion: A motion for new trial upon the ground the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and in ruling thereon the trial court may weigh the evidence. Upon appeal, the order granting a new trial will be upset where it is affirmatively shown the order is unreasonable and a manifest abuse of discretion under the state of the record and the circumstances of the case.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““These words, ‘giving or furnishing’, imply affirmative action as distinguished from the word ‘permit’ which carries the connotation of -passive acquiescence. Clearly the legislature intended that the owner, having the right to possession, could incur liability by the failure to exercise the right to possession under circumstances from which consent could be implied, whereas a person who is not the owner and hence ordinarily not having the right to grant or withhold possession or the right to exercise control, even though agreeable to the use of the motor vehicle, must commit some positive act beyond mere consent in the sense of supplying or providing the vehicle.””
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.