Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan’s Empirical Analysis
311 U.S. 243 · 1940
Citation profile
632 federal appellate · 215 district · 170 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,567 later decisions (23 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2019 · most notably Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore (1979), McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood (1984)
632 federal appellate · 215 district · 170 state decisions — followed in 26 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedDuncan v. Montgomery Ward & Co. (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader · Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co. · Slocum v. New York Life Insurance · Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman
Cited together with Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co. · Tennant v. Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co. · Gunning v. Cooley · Cone v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co. · Johnson v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
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 1,567 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, that the damages are excessive, or that, for other reasons, the trial was not fair to the party moving.”
46 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * *, we see no reason why the appellee may not, and should not, cross-assign error, in the appellant's appeal, to rulings of law at the trial, * * *.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]f during a trial by jury a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue, the court may determine the issue against that party and may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against that party with respect to a claim or defense that cannot under the controlling law be maintained or defeated without a favorable finding on that issue. Motions for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before submission of the case to the jury. Such a motion shall specify the judgment sought and the law and the facts on which the moving party is entitled to the judgment. ‡ ‡ ‡ $ H: ‡ If, for any reason, the court does not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of all the evidence, the court is considered to have submitted the action to the jury subject to the court’s later deciding the legal questions raised by the motion. The movant may renew its request for judgment as a matter of law by filing a motion no later than 10 days after entry of judgment- and may alternatively request a new trial or join a motion for a new trial under Rule 59. In ruling on a renewed motion, the court may: (1) if a verdict was returned: (A) allow the judgment to stand, (B) order a new trial, or (C) direct entry of judgment as a matter of law; or (2) if no verdict was returned; (A) order a new trial, or (B) direct entry of judgment as a matter of law.”
6 later decisions 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.