Lee v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Sealy v. McElroy (1972), 49 Ala. App. 454 - Smith v. Winkles (1973)
30 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 Parker v. Hayes Lumber Co. · McLemore v. INTERNATIONAL UNION, ETC. · Walker v. Henderson · Harris v. Schmaeling · Mullinax v. Hufham
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * Foremost, perhaps, is the principle that trial courts do have the power to grant motions for new trials in order to prevent irrevocable damage. Such power should be hesitantly exercised, because the verdict of a jury results from one of the most precious rights in our system of government, that is, the right of trial by jury. However, coupled with this principle of law, is a consistent principle that the power to set aside the verdict of a jury may be exercised when it affirmatively appears that the substantial ends of justice require the examination of facts by another jury. :}c * * * * * “Decisions granting new trials will not be reversed, unless the evidence plainly and palpably supports the verdict set aside, and the same presumption must be indulged in favor of granting the motion that would be indulged had the motion been overruled. Commercial Standard Ins. Co. v. Berger Inv. Co., 264 Ala. 208 , 86 So.2d 282 .” Lee v. Moore, 282 Ala. 461, 463 , 213 So.2d 197, 198 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is a firmly established rule of law in this State that where one of the grounds of a motion for a new trial is that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, the action of the trial court in granting the motion, without specifying the ground upon which it was granted, will not be disturbed on appeal unless the evidence plainly and palpably supports the verdict set aside. * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wall v. Walls““3. The verdict of the jury is contrary to the undisputed evidence. ‡ * * * “6. The judgment of the court is contrary to the undisputed evidence.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sealy v. McElroy
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.