Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 298 S.C. 503 - Hofer v. St. Clair

Hofer v. St. Clair’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
1
states following
November 2011
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 48 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently November 2011 · most notably Felts v. Richland County (1991), Hoeffner Ex Rel. Estate of Hoeffner v. Citadel (1993)

2 federal appellate · 48 state decisions

2601989199020002010decided

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 Townes Associates, Ltd. v. City of Greenville · Small v. Springs Industries, Inc. · McAlister v. Patterson · South Carolina State Highway Department v. Wilson · Champion v. Whaley

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

  1. “While the trial judge may not impose his will on a party by substituting his judgment for that of the jury, he may give the party an option in the way of additur or remittitur, or, in the alternative, a new trial. The consideration of a motion for a new trial nisi additur requires the trial judge to consider the adequacy of the verdict in light of the evidence presented. The trial judge who heard the evidence and is more familiar with the evidentiary atmosphere at trial possesses a better-informed view of the damages than this Court. Accordingly, great deference is given to the trial judge. The denial of a motion for a new trial nisi is within the trial judge’s discretion and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. This Court has the duty to review the record and determine whether there has been an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law.”
    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.