178 Ind. App. 31 - State v. Tabler’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently July 2000
24 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 Hamasaki v. Flotho · 39 Cal. 2d 462 - Leipert v. Honold · 244 Pa. Super. 118 - Lambert v. PBI INDUSTRIES · 155 Ind. App. 582 - Rondinelli v. Bowden · Henschen v. New York Central Railroad
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"On the other hand, having correctly determined that the damages are inadequate does not necessarily mean that a trial court may properly grant a new trial on damages alone. Indiana Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 59(E)(5) has been interpreted in Borowski v. Rupert (1972), 152 Ind.App. 9 , 281 N.E.2d 502 to permit the trial court to grant a new trial limited solely to the issue of damages or, alternatively, additur. However, the court warned that a new trial on a single issue is proper only when: *... it clearly appears that the issue to be retried is so distinct and separable from the others that a trial on it alone may be had without injustice. 281 N.E.2d 502, 506 . This constraint is particularly appropriate when inadequate damages are involved since they may be conclusive proof that the jury has compromised its verdict. F & B Livery Co. v. Indianapolis Traction & Terminal Co. (1919), 71 Ind.App. 203 , 124 N.E. 493 . Prior Indiana decisions articulate no specific standard by which the propriety of granting a new trial limited to damages because of an inadequate verdict is to be judged. Other jurisdictions, however, have done so and appear to have considered the concerns expressed in Bo-rowski and F & B Livery Co. When the issue of lability is hotly contested and the evidence and inferences are conflicting and might have supported a verdict either for the plaintiff or the defendant, a grant of a new trial limited to damages is improper. DeFreezer v. Johnson (1967), 81 Ill.Ap”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““When the issue of liability is hotly contested and the evidence and inferences are conflicting and might have supported a verdict either for the plaintiff or the defendant, a grant of a new trial limited to damages is improper. ... a limited new trial is proper only when the evidence of liability is so clear that there is no issue on that point for a second jury to retry.” (Citations omitted.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The fact that the jury awarded damages unrelated to the evidence of damages coupled with the close question of liability leads to the conclusion that they could not agree as to whose negligence caused the accident, but returned a verdict out of sympathy." (Emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions 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.