Wells v. Pope’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In the case of Grand Assembly of Lily White Security Benefit Association, Inc. v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., Fla.App.1958, 102 So.2d 842 , this court had the identical proposition to consider and in that case they considered the case of Schneiderman v. Interstate Transit Lines, Inc., 331 Ill.App. 143 , 72 N.E.2d 705, 706 , in which the Appellate Court of Illinois declared that ‘manifest means clearly evident, clear, plain, indisputable.’ Our court went on to say in that decision: “ ‘ * * * This same rule was reiterated and consistently followed in a number of decisions by the Illinois court, which are cited in 26 Words and Phrases, Manifest Weight of Evidence, in Cumulative pocket part. These decisions are all to the effect that in order to disturb a verdict it must be “against the manifest weight of the evidence” and that is one of the well recognized grounds approved by our Court but our Court has approved granting motions for new trial if the verdict is not in accord with the manifest weight of the evidence. It should be noted that the ground of the motion was that the verdict was not “in accord with the manifest weight of the evidence”.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 106 So. 2d 201 - Erlacher v. Leonard Bros. Transfer

2. ““ * * * We recognize that an order of a trial judge granting a motion for a new trial is accorded a strong presumption of correctness because of the broad discretion allowed to him in his review of the case in the light of his direct contact with the trial. However, it is our view of the instant case that although it may be said that the truck driver was guilty of some negligence it cannot be concluded as a matter of law that his negligence, such as it was, necessarily constituted a proximate cause of the collision. “We must, therefore, hold that the order granting the motion for new trial is reversed with directions to enter a judgment on the verdict of the jury.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 106 So. 2d 201 - Erlacher v. Leonard Bros. Transfer