Geiger v. Tramp’s Empirical Analysis
291 F. 353 · 1923
Citation profile
11 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently December 1950
11 federal appellate ·
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 Block v. Darling · City of Salem v. Webster · People v. Westlake · Mitchell v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““They invite this court, in other words, to retry this case and to determine whether or not, under the applicable law the weight of the evidence sustains the finding and judgment. But the ease was tried by the court below without a jury, and its decision of that issue is not reviewable in this court. It is, like the verdict of a jury, assailable only on the ground that there was no substantial evidence in support of it, and then it is reviewable only when a request has been made to the trial court before the close of the trial that it adjudge, on the specific ground that' there was no substantial evidence to sustain any other conclusion, either all the issues or some specific issue in favor of the requesting party. No such request was nfade in this ease, and the specifications of error, therefore, present no question reviewable by this court. When an action at law is tried without a jury by a federal court, and it makes a general finding, or a special finding of facts, the act of Congress forbids a reversal by the appellate court of that finding, or the judgment thereon, 'for any error of fact’ (Revised Statutes, § 1011; U. S. Compiled Stat. 1913, § 1672, p. 700), and a finding of fact contrary to the weight of the evidence-is an error of fact. “The question of law whether or not there was any substantial evidence to sustain any such finding is reviewable, as in a trial by jury, only when a. request or a motion is made, denied, and excepted to, or some other like action is ta”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.