Smith v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 150 state decisions

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

1. ““The appellant urges with great earnestness that the trial court was in error in overruling the motion for a new trial because the verdict of the jury was contrary to the great weight of the evidence. Where there is evidence which if believed justifies the verdict, a motion for a new trial is properly overruled. Johnson v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 240 Ala. 219 , 198 So. 350 ; Kurn v. Counts, 247 Ala. 129 , 22 So.2d 725 . Verdicts are presumed to be correct and no ground of new trial is more carefully scrutinized or more rigidly limited, than that the verdict is against the evidence. Cobb v. Malone, 92 Ala. 630 , 9 So. 738 . It is recognized by this court that when the presiding judge refuses, as here, to grant a new trial, the presumption in favor of the correctness of the verdict is strengthened. Bell v. Nichols, 245 Ala. 274 , 16 So.2d 799 ; Southern Railway Co. v. Kirsch, 150 Ala. 659 , 43 So. 796 .””

   12 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Morgan County v. Hill · Ragland v. Bibb County

2. “"The opinions of expert witnesses as to insanity are not conclusive on the jury, but are to be weighed like other evidence and the jury may reject all expert testimony, though it is without conflict. Hockenberry v. State , 246 Ala. 369 , 20 So.2d 533 ; George v. State , 240 Ala. 632 , 200 So. 602 . The jury may treat the testimony of experts as it deems best in connection with the facts and circumstances of the case. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Chambers , 226 Ala. 192 , 146 So. 524 ; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Jackson , 225 Ala. 652 , 144 So. 813 . In other words the judgments of experts or the inferences of skilled witnesses even when unanimous and uncontroverted are not necessarily conclusive on the jury. Commonwealth Life Ins. Co. v. Harmon , 228 Ala. 377 , 153 So. 755 ."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cunningham v. State · 395 So. 2d 47 - Nigg v. Smith

3. ““This section provides that the appeal be taken by the appellant or ‘some one for him’. As pointed out this is what the respondent did in the present instance.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Clary v. Cassels