Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 252 ARK 233 - Garrett v. Puckett

Garrett v. Puckett’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
April 1985
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Houston v. Adams · Bowman v. Gabel · Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Stephens · Worth James Const. Co. v. Fulk · Stanley v. Calico Rock Ice & Electric Co.

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

  1. “... we only reverse the ruling of the trial judge in setting aside a verdict he finds to be against the preponderance of the evidence when we find that the trial judge has abused his discretion. . . . A trial judge has the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses as he hears their testimony before a jury, whereas we must read their testimony from the printed page. Consequently, we do not pass upon the weight of the evidence in determining whether a trial judge has abused his discretion in setting aside a j ury verdict and granting a new trial, for we recognize that his opportunity for passing on the weight of the evidence is far superior to ours, and we will not interfere with his judgment unless his discretion has been manifestly abused. Meyer v. Bradley, 245 Ark. 574 , 433 S.W. 2d 160 ... We have held that the trial court has inherent power during the term to set aside its own judgment and that we will sustain the trial court’s judgment in doing so unless the verdict is so clearly supported by the preponderance of the evidence as to indicate abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge. Bobbitt v. Bradford, 241 Ark. 697 , 409 S.W. 2d 339 .”
    2 later decisions 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.