Daniel v. Daniel’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““* * * said statute specifically provides that' either party may demand a jury to pass on the sufficiency of the evidence, and we do not believe that in cases in the attitude of the instant lease the court has the right to take the case from the jury, and himself in the first instance pass upon the. sufficiency of the proof to sustain the allegations in the petition. This would be an abuse of the discretion vested in him. It is well settled under the statute mentioned, supra, the court is not bound by the verdict of the jury, and he may refuse to render judgment in accordance with the verdict, but in that case he would have to set aside the jury’s verdict; he .would not be justified in refusing to submit'the case to the jury and then determining the disputed question of fact himself. See Brueggerman v. Brueggerman, (Tex.Civ.App.,) 191 S.W. 570 ; Tinnon v. Tinnon, (Tex.Civ.App.,) 278 S.W. 288 ; Caywood v. Caywood, (Tex.Civ.App.,) 290 S.W. 889 ; Ellis v. Ellis, (Tex.Civ.App.,) 251 S.W. 287 ; McNabb v. McNabb, (Tex.Civ.App.,) 207 S.W. 129 ; Dawson v. Dawson, [63] Tex.Civ.App. [168,] 132 S.W. 379 ; Golding v. Golding, 49 Tex.Civ.App. 176 , 108 S.W. 496 .””

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