100 Cal. App. 503 - Johnson v. Pearson’s Empirical Analysis
1929
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently February 1969
20 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 Sloane v. Southern California Railway Co. · O'Connor v. United R.R. of S.F. · Townsend v. Butterfield · Warren v. Boston & Maine Railroad · Easton v. United Trade Sch. Contracting 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The rule is well established that the amount of damages in this kind of an action is committed first to the sound discretion of the jury, and next to the discretion of the judge of the trial court, who, in ruling upon the motion for a new trial, may consider the evidence anew, determine anew the facts, and set aside the verdict if it is not just. “Upon appeal, the decision of the trial court and the jury on the subject cannot be set aside unless the verdict is ‘so.plainly and outrageously excessive as to suggest, at first blush, passion or prejudice or corruption on the part of the jury.' (Reneau v. Hirsch, 88 Cal. App. 1 [ 262 Pac. 1100, 1102 ], and cases cited.) ””
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.