Krepcik v. Interstate Transit Lines’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The purpose of a motion for a new trial is to enable the court to correct errors that have occurred in the conduct of the trial. [Citations omitted.]... ... In considering and passing upon a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the court does not examine any issue of fact. The court, by the mandate of the statute, considers the record made on the trial and decides as a matter of law whether the evidence already in the record justified the submission of the case to the jury, or whether the court on the trial should have sustained the motion for a directed verdict. The court cannot, in such a situation, weigh or consider any part of the evidence in the sense of deciding any issue of fact. The matter presented by the motion for a judgment is one of law. . . . The proceedings by the trial court on the motion of appellee for judgment was in the language of the statute only a “determination of the legal questions raised by the motion.”... . . . The party against whom a judgment notwithstanding the verdict has been rendered does not want a new trial and should not be required to make application for a new trial, a ruling on which he might not be able to secure in the limited time permitted for an appeal. What he wants is the right of a review in this court of the correctness of the action of the trial court in setting aside the verdict and rendering a judgment adverse to him. . . . [N]o motion for a new trial should be required in reference to any order made by the cou”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dunn v. Hemberger