Russo v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently January 2001 · most notably 322 So. 2d 520 - Castlewood International Corporation v. LaFleur (1975), 269 So. 2d 714 - Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Pickard (1972)
42 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 110 So. 2d 669 - Cloud v. Fallis · 131 So. 2d 740 - Bennett v. Jacksonville Expressway Authority · 56 So. 2d 905 - Poindexter v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co. · 115 So. 2d 444 - Price v. Jordan · Mow v. F. P. Sadowski Corp.
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * that such an order may be reviewed on the record for the purpose of ascertaining whether the exercise of judicial discretion implicit in the order has been abused. * * *”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"* * * a trial judge's statement that his judicial conscience was shocked by a jury's verdict does not render his order granting a new trial impervious to appellate review and * * * the validity of such conclusion must be weighed in the light of the disclosures of the record."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... The New Trial is granted for reasons including but not limited to the following: that the jury verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence presented; that the verdict was based on a misconception of the evidence and a misapplication of the law; that the verdict was arrived at through prejudice, passion, bias, or other improper influence; and that the jury was misled by the force and credibility of the evidence. The Counterdefendant [sic] failed to sustain his burden of proving conversion in that he failed to prove ownership of diamonds valued in an amount related to the jury verdict and failed to prove that the Counterdefendant wrongfully deprived him of said diamonds. The jury was also swayed by conduct of the BANK which did not establish conversion and consequently their verdict did not follow the law of the case.”
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.