2 Ill. App. 3d 600 - Williamson v. Swank’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
7 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 33 Ill. App. 2d 406 - Ryan v. Monson · 103 Ill. App. 2d 1 - Lombard Park District v. Chicago Title & Trust Co. · 70 Ill. App. 2d 216 - Magnani v. Trogi · 129 Ill. App. 2d 320 - Noncek v. Ram Tool Corp. · 92 Ill. App. 2d 63 - MacAk v. Continental Baking 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The purpose of vesting the trial judge with power to grant a new trial is to permit him, before losing jurisdiction of the case, to correct errors that he or the jury might have made during the course of the trial. Courts of review have repeatedly stated that they will not disturb the decision of a trial court on a motion for new trial unless a clear abuse of discretion is affirmatively shown. The reason for this rule is that the trial court has had the opportunity to consider the conduct of the trial as a whole, and therefore is in a superior position to consider the effects of errors which occurred, the fairness of the trial to all parties, and whether substantial justice was accomplished. [Citation.] Greater latitude is allowed a trial court in granting a new trial than in denying a new trial.” (Magnani v. Trogi (1966), 70 Ill. App. 2d 216, 220 , 218 N.E.2d 21 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The principle that trial courts are allowed a greater latitude in granting, rather than denying, a new trial has been emphasized many times. Courts of review are reluctant to review and reverse orders granting new trials and the power to do so is seldom exercised [citation]. Reversal of such new trial orders is not directed unless the abuse is obvious or the trial court acted under a misapprehension or clearly erroneous understanding of the law. The fundamental principle is that a trial judge is allowed broad discretion in granting of a new trial and that his action in so doing will only be reversed where it affirmatively appears that he has clearly and palpably abused his discretion.” Williamson v. Swank (1971), 2 Ill. App. 3d 600, 603 , 276 N.E.2d 737, 739 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.