Fechner v. Case’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 state decisions

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

1. “Rulings on motions for judgment notwithstanding verdict are reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. Bland v. Davison County, 1997 SD 92, ¶ 26 , 566 N.W.2d 452, 460 . Evidence and inferences most favorable to the non-moving party are examined to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the jury’s judgment. Robinson v. Mudlin, 273 N.W.2d 753, 755 (S.D.1979). Conflicting evidence is not reweighed; witness credibility is not reassessed. The moving party’s evidence is only given consideration if it is uncontra-dicted or tends to amplify, clarify or explain evidence which supports the verdict. Dartt v. Berghorst, 484 N.W.2d 891, 895 (S.D.1992); Nugent v. Quam, 82 S.D. 583, 589 , 152 N.W.2d 371, 374 (1967).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Welch v. Haase · Thompson v. Mehlhaff

2. “Whether a new trial should be granted is left to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, and this Court will not disturb the trial court’s decision absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion. If the trial court finds an injustice has been done by the jury’s verdict, the remedy lies in granting a new trial. We determine that an abuse of discretion occurred only if no judicial mind, in view of the law and circumstances of the particular case, could reasonably have reached such a conclusion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Thompson v. Mehlhaff