Dalmas v. Kemble’s Empirical Analysis
1906
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 80 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1981 · most notably Slocum v. New York Life Insurance (1913), Hostetler v. Kniseley (1936)
4 federal appellate · 80 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 Reel v. Elder · Butts v. Armor · North American Oil Co. v. Forsyth Bros.
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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The act being so recent, it is important that it should be examined closely, and its proper construction settled. * * * This statute makes no radical innovation on the settled line of distinction between the powers of the court and the jury. It shows no intention to infringe, oven if it could constitutionally do so, the province of the jury to pass upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the oral testimony. The court lias long had authority to direct a_verdict for defendant when it was of opinion that the plaintiff, even if alt his evidence be believed, has failed to make out his case. But this had to be done offhand at the trial, and a mistake of the judge either way resulted in delay and expense. If he directed for defendant, but on more deliberate examination or consideration came to the view that there was some evidence for the jury to pass upon, a new trial was the only remedy; while, on the other hand, if he refused a binding direction, but later found that it should have been given, the same result followed, for after a question has been submitted to a jury and the fact found by them the power of the court to enter a contrary judgment on the ground that the evidence was insufficient is gon e . The authority to reserve questions of law for the consideration of the court in banc was first conferred by the act of March 1, 1825 (P. L. 41), upon the judge-» of the district court of Philadelphia, continued in the same court by the act of March 28, 1885 (P. L. 88”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““That whenever, upon the trial of any issue, a point requesting binding instructions has been reserved or declined, the party presenting the point may, within the time prescribed for moving for a new trial, or within such other or further time as the court shall allow, move the court to have all the evidence taken upon the trial duly certified and filed so as to become i>art of the record, and for judgment non obstante veredicto upon the whole record; whereupon it shall be the duty of the court, if it does not grant a new trial, to so certify the evidence, and to enter such judgment as should have been entered upon that evidence, at the same time granting to the party against whom the decision is rendered an exception to the action of the court in that regard. From the judgment thus entered either party may appeal to the supreme or superior court, as in other cases, which shall review the action of the court below, and enter such judgment as shall be warranted by the evidence taken, in that court.””
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.