Knoblock v. Morris’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 20 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““There is, of course, no uniformity in our decisions on the proposition of when damages allowed in a personal injury action are excessive for the simple reason determination of that question necessarily depends upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case as it is presented for review. Recognized in every case, however, irrespective of its results, is the now well-established doctrine that in order for a judgment to be set aside as excessive it must appear that it is so large as to shock the conscience of the court. (citing cases.) Many other cases to the same effect are to be found but they would only further emphasize the rule and time and space will not permit their citation. “That the verdict in this case was liberal is beyond dispute. However, under the rule when we give full credence to all the testimony adduced by the appellee, heretofore set forth in detail, which we are required to do because the jury gave it such credence, we cannot say the verdict was sufficiently excessive, if actually excessive, as to evidence passion and prejudice on the part of the jury or to require the granting of a new trial. Obviously, under such circumstances, since the trial court in the exercise of its discretion saw fit to materially reduce the verdict we are not disposed to reverse the judgment on the ground it was excessive.” (pp. 395, 396.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Knoche v. Meyer Sanitary Milk Co.

2. “. . Defendant knew the stop sign was there and he knew that U. S. Highway 40 was a so-called high-speed four-lane highway. He approached the intersection at a speed of thirty or thirty-five miles per hour and from the physical fact of his car ‘shooting’ out into the highway the jury was justified in finding that from all of the surrounding facts and circumstances his manner of driving showed a wanton disregard of the safety of others properly on the highway.” (p. 545.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Long Ex Rel. Long v. Foley

3. “The mere fact that a person receiving an injury has a predisposition to a certain disease, or in fact had such disease or condition, would not relieve one who was guilty of negligence from liability in damages if it is established that such disease or condition was aggravated or made more painful by reason of the injury caused by such negligence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 396 F. Supp. 2d 1241 - Hildebrand v. Sunbeam Products, Inc.