208 So. 2d 101 - Hendricks v. Dailey’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
57 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently October 2001 · most notably 322 So. 2d 520 - Castlewood International Corporation v. LaFleur (1975), 229 So. 2d 850 - Stirling v. Sapp (1969)
57 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 110 So. 2d 669 - Cloud v. Fallis · 94 So. 2d 724 - Hartnett v. Fowler · Russo v. Clark · 181 So. 2d 212 - Smith v. Peninsular Insurance Company · Cutchins v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`has a heavy burden to make error to appear in the exercise of the broad discretion allowed the judge who has presided at the trial, and who has had direct, personal contact with the presentation of the case as it unfolded at the trial level.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“... The New Trial is granted for reasons including but not limited to the following: that the jury verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence presented; that the verdict was based on a misconception of the evidence and a misapplication of the law; that the verdict was arrived at through prejudice, passion, bias, or other improper influence; and that the jury was misled by the force and credibility of the evidence. The Counterdefendant [sic] failed to sustain his burden of proving conversion in that he failed to prove ownership of diamonds valued in an amount related to the jury verdict and failed to prove that the Counterdefendant wrongfully deprived him of said diamonds. The jury was also swayed by conduct of the BANK which did not establish conversion and consequently their verdict did not follow the law of the case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ * * * However, as we have pointed out, this rule was erroneously applied also as a standard for testing the correctness of the order on the motion for a new trial. The two motions are different and require application of different guidelines. * * * “To the extent that the decision under review set aside the order granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, it is not disturbed. To the extent that it set aside the order awarding a new trial it is quashed and the cause is remanded for reconsideration by the District Court in the light of this opinion.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dailey v. Hendricks
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.