Veeder v. Kennedy’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably State v. Smith (1999), Roth v. Farner-Bocken Co. (2003)
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 40 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 Faragher v. City of Boca Raton · Monge v. California · BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore · Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth · Moulin v. Monteleone
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A motion for a directed verdict under SDCL 15-6-50(a) questions the legal sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict against the moving party. Upon such a motion, the trial court must determine whether there is any substantial evidence to sustain the action. The evidence must be accepted which is most favorable to the nonmoving party and the trial court must indulge all legitimate inferences therefrom in his favor. If sufficient evidence exists so that reasonable minds could differ, a directed verdict is not appropriate. The trial court's decisions and rulings on such motions are presumed correct and this Court will not seek reasons to reverse.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[This Court] construe[s] jury instructions as a whole to learn if they provided a full and correct statement of the law. If, as a whole, the instructions misled, conflicted, or confused, then reversible error occurred. The party charging that an instruction was given in error has the dual burden of showing that the instruction was erroneous and prejudicial. An erroneous instruction is prejudicial if in all probability it produced some effect upon the verdict and is harmful to the substantial rights of the party assigning it.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“From intent, we determine ‘the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct,’ which is viewed as probably the most important indication of the reasonableness of the punitive damage award.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.