Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 263 N.W.2d 522 - Kaiser v. Stathas

Kaiser v. Stathas’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
October 2008
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently October 2008

18 state decisions

1101978198019902000decided

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 Northrup v. Miles Homes, Inc. of Iowa · Householder v. Town of Clayton · Lappe v. Blocker · Lantz v. Cook · Moore v. Bailey

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

  1. ““While the jury as the trier of fact is not warranted in arbitrarily or capriciously rejecting the testimony of a witness, neither is it required to accept and give effect to testimony which it finds to be unreliable, although it may be uncontradicted. Testimony may be unimpeached by any direct evidence to the contrary and yet be so contrary to natural laws, inherently improbable or unreasonable, opposed to common knowledge, inconsistent with other circumstances established in evidence, or so contradictory within itself, as to be subject to rejection by the court or by the jury as trier of the facts. Kindred v. Crosby, 251 Iowa 198, 202 , 100 N.W.2d 20, 23 [ (1959) ].””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““In jury trials controverted issues of fact are for the jury to decide. That is what juries are for. To hold that a judge should set aside a verdict just because he would have reached a different conclusion would substitute judges for juries. It would relegate juries to unimportant window dressing. That we cannot do * * * ft”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The test for adequacy is for the court to determine what will fairly and reasonably compensate an injured party for the injury sustained. ... a verdict will be set aside as inadequate where it appears clearly from uncontroverted evidence that the amount of the verdict bears no reasonable relationship to the loss suffered by the plaintiff. (citations omitted).”
    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.