State v. Ferguson’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently December 2002 · most notably 371 So. 2d 899 - Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc. v. Henderson (1979), Fallaw v. Flowers (1962)
1 federal appellate · 26 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 Cook & Laurie Contracting Co. v. Bell · Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Chicago Varnish Co. · Deal v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. · City of Anniston v. Douglas · 17 Ala. App. 606 - Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Barksdale
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Our cases make it clear that the question of the excessiveness of the jury's verdict will not be considered or determined on appeal unless such question is first presented to the lower court which is usually done by motion for a new trial. The motion must specifically challenge or question the amount of the verdict as being excessive. § 811, Title 7, Code of 1940; Cook Laurie Contracting Co. v. Bell , 177 Ala. 618 , 59 S. 273; Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Chicago Varnish Co. , 169 Ala. 287 , 53 So. 832 ; Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Chambers , 197 Ala. 93 , 72 So. 351 . "The obvious purpose of requiring the question of the excessiveness of the verdict to be first raised in the lower court, is to provide an opportunity for the trial judge to resolve the question and an opportunity for the appellee to file a remittitur without the additional expense, inconvenience and delay of appeal and without burdening the Supreme Court with such a question raised for the first time on appeal."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The act of 1915 (Acts 1915, p. 610), [now Code 1975, § 12-22-71] relied on by appellant's counsel, was not intended to confer upon this court jurisdiction to reverse a judgment of the court below, or to reduce the amount of the judgment as excessive, in the absence of any application to the trial court and ruling thereon inviting such review. In a case of this character on appeal this court is in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction only. While the language of the act of 1915 may not expressly so state, yet we think it quite clear that the act presupposes appropriate application to the trial court and action thereon. To construe it otherwise would confer upon this court original jurisdiction to grant a new trial, and such was clearly not the legislative intent. Upon the question of excessive damages, therefore, we have before us nothing to review."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Remittiturs are favored in proper cases for the promotion of justice and the ending of litigation.”
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.