Mischel v. Vogel’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

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

1. “[A] motion for new trial based on insufficiency of the evidence is addressed to the sound, judicial discretion of the trial court, and the action of the trial court in passing on such motion will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion is clearly established. Stokes v. Dailey (N.D.), 97 N.W.2d 676 ; Grenz v. Werre (N.D.), 129 N.W.2d 681 ; Kuntz v. McQuade (N.D.), 95 N.W.2d430. An order granting a new trial on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence will not be reversed as readily as an order denying a new trial, since such order granting a new trial does not make final determination of the case. Olson v. Thompson (N.D.), 74 N.W.2d 432 ; Mischel v. Vogel (N.D.), 96 N.W.2d 233 . Appellate courts are much more reluctant to interfere with the action of a trial court in granting a new trial than they are to interfere when a new trial has been denied. Blum v. Standard Oil Co., 68 N.D. 329 , 279 N.W. 764 . Linington v. McLean County, supra, 146 N.W.2d 52 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Muhlhauser v. Archie Campbell Construction Co.

2. ““Negligence proximately causing the plaintiffs’ damages, like any other fact, may be proved by circumstantial evidence.” Mischel v. Vogel, 96 N.W.2d 233 , 236 (N.D.1959).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Steel v. Downs