Wilhelm v. Haemmerle’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

35 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The rule applicable here is that when a trial court grants a new trial on the ground of excessiveness (or inadequacy), 4 it is equivalent to granting a new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. The trial court is allowed a wide discretion in granting a motion for a new trial and this is particularly so where the court has ruled the motion upon the amount of the verdict, and thus, upon the weight of the evidence. In considering the size of the verdict herein, the trial court had the right to weigh the evidence. To do so, the trial court could take into consideration all of the evidence pertaining to plaintiffs injuries and physical condition and not merely plaintiffs evidence which was most favorable. The trial court had the right to consider and weigh the conflicting evidence offered by defendant and to evaluate all of the evidence in the light of the trial court’s opportunity to see, hear and observe plaintiff and the various witnesses who testified. This is an important function of the trial court. We could not properly determine the propriety of the trial court’s action by applying a different rule or test — by considering only plaintiffs evidence in its light most favorable to her. While an appellate court should not undertake to weigh the evidence on the issue of plaintiffs damages, it should examine the record to determine whether there is substantial evidence supporting the view that plaintiffs injuries were less serious and disabl”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wiley v. Homfeld