Werthan Bag Corp. v. Agnew’s Empirical Analysis
202 F.2d 119 · 1953
Citation profile
60 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 101 later decisions — most recently August 2006 · most notably Lind v. Schenley Industries Inc. (1960), Bruner v. Dunaway (1982)
60 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · West v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. · Tennant v. Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co. · Hitaffer v. Argonne Co. · Virginian Ry. Co. v. Armentrout
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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(C)ourts are not free to reweigh the evidence and set aside the jury verdicts merely because the jury could have drawn different inferences or conclusions or because judges feel that other results are more reasonable.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The power of this Court to review and set aside an order of the District Court overruling a motion for a new trial based on alleged excessive damages, is very limited. (Citations omitted) It is not sufficient that the verdict is considerably larger than we think it should have been. In the absence of a showing of passion and prejudice on the part of the jury, the trial court's action in overruling a motion for a new trial where a factual question is involved, will not be reviewed by this Court unless it involves an abuse of discretion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It would be a usurpation of judicial authority, in the absence of any showing of bias, prejudice, passion, corruption or caprice upon the part of the jury where there is in the record substantial evidence to support the amount awarded by a jury as damages to the plaintiff, should the trial judge presume to set aside the verdict, or to reduce it, * * *.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hoskins v. Blalock
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.