Kraut v. Cornell’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
34 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 21 Cal. 2d 654 - Hicks v. Reis · 30 Cal. 2d 605 - Huth v. Katz · 97 Cal. App. 2d 641 - Gersick v. Shilling · 111 Cal. App. 2d 593 - Harris v. Los Angeles Transit Lines · 135 Cal. App. 2d 672 - Hill v. Thomas
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Plaintiff’s position is that ‘the damages awarded are inadequate as a matter of law. ’ The guiding principle in the instant matter is aptly stated in Gersick v. Shilling, 97 Cal.App.2d 641 [ 218 P.2d 583 ]. On page 645, the court said: ‘The question as to the amount of damages is g question of fact. In the first instance, it is for the jury to fix the amount of damages, and secondly, for the trial judge, on a motion for a new trial, to pass on the question of adequacy. Whether the contention is that the damages fixed by the jury are too high or too low, the determination of that question rests largely in the discretion of the trial judge. The appellate court has not seen or heard the witnesses, and has no power to pass upon their credibility.’ In accord are Harris v. Los Angeles Transit Lines, 111 Cal.App.2d 593, 597 [ 245 P.2d 35 ] ; Sills v. Soto, 124 Cal.App.2d 539, 544 [ 269 P.2d 98 ] ; Adams v. Pacific Motor Trucking Co., 172 Cal.App.2d 505, 507 [ 342 P.2d 351 ]. It is, of course, the responsibility of the trier of fact to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. (Huth v. Katz, 30 Cal.2d 605, 609 [ 184 P.2d 521 ].) ‘in this connection it should also be pointed out that the trier of fact may reject the uncontradicted testimony of a witness provided he does not act arbitrarily. (Emphasis added.) (Hicks v. Reis, 21 Cal.2d 654, 659-660 [ 134 P.2d 788 ].) Relevant in this respect are many considerations: interest of the witness in”
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.