Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 203 So. 2d 309 - Conner v. Hatcher

203 So. 2d 309 - Conner v. Hatcher’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
November 1989
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Rayner v. Lindsey · Long v. MAGNOLIA HOTEL CO. · Capital Transport Co. v. Segrest · Harper v. State Highway Commission · 193 So. 2d 559 - Dendy v. City of Pascagoula

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

  1. “In the case now before us, it is beyond dispute that the collision was the proximate result of negligence on the part of Hatcher in operating his automobile and that Mrs. Conner was wholly free of contributory negligence. Moreover, it is undisputed that, prior to the collision, she was in good health, was a person unusually active in sports and habitually did all of her own house work. Following the accident, she underwent the most excruciating pain for a long period of time, was forced to undergo major surgery, has continued and will continue to experience severe pain, and has suffered a substantial disability. None of this is in dispute. Therefore, although we are reluctant to disturb the action of the trial court in sustaining the motion and in ordering a new trial upon the issue of damages alone, we have reached the conclusion that he was manifestly in error in so doing in the case of Mrs. Conner.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “"We have consistently held in a long line of cases that this Court, in considering the action of the trial court in passing on a motion for a new trial will consider the action with favor and stipport it unless it is manifestly wrong. Especially is this true where a new trial has been granted, since the rights of the parties are not finally settled at this point. We will not disturb such action unless it is a manifest abuse of discretion193 So.2d at 564. (Emphasis added).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.