Schroeder v. Richardson’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
49 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently July 1986 · most notably Thompson v. Norman (1967), Newell v. Krause (1986)
49 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 Johnson v. Soden · Kallail v. Solomon · Davis v. Fraser · Briney v. Toews · Kitchen v. Lasley Co.
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A jury cannot arbitrarily or capriciously refuse to consider the testimony of any witness, but it is not obliged to accept and give effect to evidence which, in its honest opinion, is unreliable, even though such evidence is uncontradicted. “Appellate courts cannot nullify a jury’s disbelief of evidence nor can they determine the persuasiveness of testimony which a jury may have believed. “The effect of a negative finding of fact by a jury, as contrasted to an affirmative one, against one upon whom the burden of proof rests is that such party did not sustain that burden. Absent arbitrary and capricious disregard of undisputed evidence or some extrinsic consideration such as bias, passion or prejudice on the part of the jury, such finding cannot be disturbed.” (Syl. TT4, 5, 6.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Montgomery v. Manos““The effect of a negative finding of fact by a jury, as contrasted to an affirmative one, against one upon whom the burden of proof rests, is that such party did not sustain that burden. Absent arbitrary and capricious disregard of undisputed evidence or some extrinsic consideration such as bias, passion or prejudice on the part of the jury, such finding cannot be disturbed. Appellate courts cannot nullify a jury’s disbelief of evidence nor can they determine the persuasiveness of testimony which a jury may have believed.” (Syl. ¶ 1.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Vannaman v. Caldwell““Upon appeal in considering the propriety of a verdict the evidence is to be viewed in a light most favorable to sustaining the verdict.” (Syl. ¶ 1.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Vannaman v. Caldwell
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.