Stokes v. Dailey’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently April 1979
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 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 Dahl v. North American Creameries, Inc. · Thompson v. Hannah Farmers Cooperative Elevator Co.
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.
“In the case of State ex rel. Brazerol v. Yellow Cab Co., 62 N.D. 733 , 245 N.W. 382, 384 , this court held that a motion for a directed verdict should not be granted unless the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law upon the merits as appears from the evidence. In that connection the court said: “Such motion will not be granted where there is an issue for the jury to pass upon under the evidence (Zink v. Lahart, 16 N.D. 56 , 110 N.W. 931 ; State Bank of Maxbass v. Hurley Farmers Elevator Co., 33 N.D. 272 , 156 N.W. 921 ), but, in determining the validity of the ruling, the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made. (Warnken v. Langdon Mercantile Co., 8 N.D. 243 , 77 N.W. 1000 ; John Miller Co. v. Klovstad, 14 N.D. 435 , 105 N.W. 164 ; Schantz v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 42 N.D. 377 , 173 N.W. 556 ; Chubb v. Baldwin Piano Co., 54 N.D. 189 , 208 N.W. 975 ).” [Emphasis supplied by court in Stokes.] Stokes v. Dailey, 85 N.W.2d 745, at 751 (N.D. 1957).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““While a jury may not resort to conjecture or surmise or be permitted to fancy or imagine situations and circumstances which do not appear in the evidence, a jury may consider facts and circumstances proved, and make such just and reasonable inferences therefrom as the guarded judgment of reasonable men would ordinarily make under like circumstances. They might find any fact proven which they believe might rightfully and reasonably be inferred from the evidence in the case, but such inferences should be logical and natural results drawn from the evidence by proper deduction. Scheid v. Cavanagh, 65 N.D. 596 , 260 N.W. 619 .””
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.