Dawson v. Dawson’s Empirical Analysis
1932
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently July 2001
16 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 State v. Spotted Hawk · Cook v. Pendergast · State ex rel. Interstate Lumber Co. v. District Court · Thomas v. Placerville Gold Quartz Mining Co. · McSherry v. Pennsylvania Consolidated Gold Mining 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘The plaintiff, within the limitations of the statutes, may select any county he chooses for the trial of his action, and to this choice the defendant must conform unless he seasonably moves for a change of place of trial. The word “moves,” as here employed, comprehends the things necessary to be done by the litigant to obtain an order of court directing the change. A defendant may waive his right to the privilege of the change by omitting to demand the right or by failing to observe the statutory requirements. # * *’ [O’Hanion v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 76 Mont. 128 , 245 P. 518 .] “As noted, by the provisions of section 9098 of our Codes, [R.C.M.1921, now R.C.M.1947, § 93-2906] a change of place of trial must be by the court ordered ‘when the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change/ The provisions of this section are mandatory, and require the district court to change the venue, but only after a motion has been made and a sufficient showing made by the defendant. The court cannot act of its own motion, for, while a party may have an absolute right to a change of venue, it is a right which he may waive, and the court is without authority to invoke the statute in his behalf. State ex rel. Gnose v. District Court, 30 Mont. 188 , 75 P. 1109 ; State ex rel. Sell v. District Court, 52 Mont. 457 , 158 P. 1018 ; Danielson v. Danielson, [ 62 Mont. 83 , 203 P. 506 ] ; O’Hanion v. Great Northern Ry. Co., [ 76 Mont. 128 , 245 P. 518 ]. And the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.