Panas v. Harakis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 2 district · 44 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““I. If a person who has been sentenced to probation, conditional discharge, or a fine has complied with the conditions of his sentence, he may, at any time after one year following completion of the terms of his sentence, apply to the court in which the original sentence was entered for an order to annul the record of conviction and sentence. H: VII. The court shall enter the order applied for under paragraph I ... if in the court’s opinion the order will assist in the applicant’s rehabilitation and will be consistent with the public welfare. Upon entry of the order, the applicant shall be treated in all respects as if he had never been convicted and sentenced, except that, upon conviction of any crime committed after the order of annulment has been entered, the prior conviction may be considered by the court in determining the sentence to be imposed.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brown v. Brown

2. ““Undoubtedly, it is possible to demonstrate that the jury made an affirmative mistake, as for example, by rendering internally inconsistent findings that manifest legal error. Similarly, the fact that the jury had been bribed would warrant setting aside a verdict on the basis of corruption. The crucial distinction is that in a motion to set aside a verdict because of mistake, partiality, or corruption, the moving party must demonstrate the mistake, partiality or corruption as grounds independent of a verdict conclusively against the weight of the evidence. As a practical matter, it will often be easier to demonstrate that the verdict was conclusively against the weight of the evidence than it will be to demonstrate jury mistake.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnston v. Lynch

3. “Where the verdict is decidedly against the weight of the evidence, so that it is apparent that the jury must have misunderstood or totally disregarded the instructions of the court thereon, or must have neglected to consider the facts, and overlooked prominent and essential points in the evidence, where it is such a verdict that twelve honest and intelligent [jurors] would not have returned it, it is the duty of the court to set it aside.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kravitz v. Beech Hill Hospital, L.L.C.