Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 941 P2D 120 - Manes v. Coats

Manes v. Coats’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
June 2022
most recently cited

2 district · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently June 2022

2 district · 16 state decisions

701997200020102020decided

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 Sparks v. Republic National Life Insurance · Conam Alaska v. Bell Lavalin, Inc. · 87 Ill. App. 3d 801 - United Airlines, Inc. v. Lerner · 172 Cal. App. 3d 83 - McCollum v. Friendly Hills Travel Center · Maurer v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc.

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

  1. “At the close of the evidence or at such earlier time as the court reasonably directs, any party may file written requests that the court give the jury specific instructions. The court shall inform counsel of the final form of jury instructions prior to their arguments to the jury. Following the close of the evidence, before or after the arguments of counsel, the court shall instruct the jury. Additionally, the court may give the jury such instructions as it deems necessary at any stage of the trial. No party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless the party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which the party objects and the grounds of the objection. Opportunity must be given to make the objection out of the hearing of the jury, by excusing the jury or hearing objections in chambers.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[The party's] failure to offer proposed language that would have correctly allocated the burden of proof means that [it] did not provide the superior court with an 'identifiable opportunity to rule' on the issues it now raises.”
    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.