107 So. 2d 264 - Cloud v. Fallis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"While trying to locate the boundaries of a trial judge's discretion recognized by all the cases, the writer of this opinion must frankly confess that there appears to be, among the cases above mentioned, clear authority to affirm the trial judge in the present case and authority just as clear to reverse. The former cases seem to admit of a broader discretion of the trial judge as regards the evidence presented during trial before him than do the latter. Particularly is this true of the `close case', as we have presently before us, and it is in such cases that we perceive persuasive need for a clear cut statement of that discretion. Juries, and admittedly judges, are human and therefore, sometimes are prone to err or misunderstand when faced with the relative complexities of the law, rights, duties, and other abstractions so essential to the goal sought in every court room — justice. Unfortunately, the saddest results of such errors or misunderstandings come about in cases where they may not appear upon the cold record on appeal, no matter how clear they might have been to the trial judge who saw and heard everything the jury saw and heard. "Resolution of this problem is simplified by a concise statement outlining our duties as regards that problem, found in Pyms v. Meranda, Fla. 1957, 98 So.2d 341, 343 . There the Court said: "`In our consideration of the scope of review available to the Circuit Judge, sitting as an appellate court, we feel that the Circuit Judge was bound b”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 190 So. 2d 23 - Grant v. Williams

2. “province of the jury for the reason that it does not conclusively settle facts in the form of a verdict, but only gives another jury the opportunity of so doing and of correcting what appears to be a mistake.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 110 So. 2d 669 - Cloud v. Fallis

3. “"* * * It is much better however, that exceptional cases of its improper exercise should be endured than that the security which it affords should be withdrawn. * * *"”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 186 So. 2d 520 - McNeely v. State