Baber v. Buckley’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently November 1995
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 9 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 Tennant v. Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co. · Lind v. Schenley Industries Inc. · Alonzo Wayne Taylor v. The Washington Terminal Company · Freid v. McGrath · Demeretz v. Daniels Motor Freight, Inc.
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the [trial] judge takes over, if he does not usurp, the prime function of the jury as the trier of the facts. It then becomes the duty of the-appellate tribunal to exercise a closer degree of scrutiny and supervision than is the case where a new trial is granted because of some undesirable or pernicious influence obtruding into the trial. Such a close scrutiny is required in order to protect the litigants’ right to jury trial. [Lind v. Schenley Industries, Inc., supra, at 90.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“there has been a legal error in the proceeding, the damages are excessive, the trial court was unfair, or the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence.”
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.