Boodram v. Brooklyn Developmental Center’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate ·

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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “There is nothing in the statute or case law that suggests the Legislature or the Court of Appeals intended such a drastic change as would result from, in effect, precluding review of a jury verdict to determine whether it is against the weight of the evidence. Nor does any principle or policy argue for such a result. There is no insult to the jury in recognizing that, despite its continually-proven practical wisdom in matters of common living, none of its particular collectives is likely to possess the expertise to which deference is given by the “substantial evidence” standard.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brady v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

2. “This court concludes, therefore, that the “substantial evidence” standard does not foreclose full review of a jury verdict. ... That is not to say that decisions reviewing awards made by the Commissioner are not highly important to the review of jury verdicts, and certainly should not suggest that the strong public policy of full compensation for victims should not guide the court’s assessment of the evidence. It merely acknowledges that courts cannot avoid their traditional, and often difficult, role in reviewing jury verdicts on weight-of-the-evidence motions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brady v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

3. “material deviation standard calls for a comparison with verdicts sustained in similar cases,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brady v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.