Schaeffer v. McGhee’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 32 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is undisputed that appellant’s vehicle was struck from the rear by the appellee’s vehicle. Appellant assumes from that fact alone the jury was obligated to return a verdict in her favor. That is not our law. A plaintiff must prove that she sustained an injury, that the defendant was negligent, and that the negligence of the defendant was the proximate cause of her injuries. See AMI 203. . . . Where the sufficiency of the evidence to support a verdict is the issue on appeal, the standard of review is whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence. Obviously in appeals from a verdict for the defendant the rule cannot always be read literally, as the defendant may have introduced little or no proof, yet the jury found against the plaintiff. It makes little sense in such cases for the plaintiff to argue the strict application of the rule, insisting that a reversal is required because the defendant’s proof failed to meet the substantial evidence test. The evident fact is the plaintiff failed to convince the jury, or fact finder, of an essential element of proof. That seems to have been the case with this jury; it simply did not think the defendant was negligent, or that the plaintiff’s injuries were proximately caused by the negligence, if any. Thus, the lack of substance is not with the defendant’s proof, but with the plaintiff’s. See Morton v. American Medical Int’l, Inc., 286 Ark. 88 , 689 S.W.2d 535 (1985).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Weber v. Bailey · Anderson v. Graham

2. “[w]e must give 'the verdict the benefit of all reasonable inferences permissible under the proof.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Yeldell v. Tutt · National American Insurance v. Hogan

3. “It is undisputed appellant’s vehicle was stuck from the rear by the appellee’s vehicle. Appellant assumes from that fact alone the jury was obligated to return a verdict in her favor. That is not our law. A plaintiff must prove that she sustained an injury, that the defendant was negligent, and that the negligence of the defendant was the proximate cause of her injuries. See AMI 203. The fact that appellee’s vehicle struck her does not create a presumption of negligence. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Ward, 197 Ark. 520 , 124 S.W.2d 975 (1939), and the jury may have decided the appellee was exercising ordinary care. . . .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dovers v. Stephenson Oil Co., Inc.