Edwards v. Gramling Engineering Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 34 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(e) Verdict containing written findings. The court may require a jury to return a verdict in the form of written findings upon specific issues. For that purpose, the court may use any method of submitting the issues and requiring written findings as it deems appropriate, including the submission of written questions susceptible of brief answers or of written forms of the several special findings that might properly be made under the pleadings and evidence. The court shall inslruct the jury as may be necessary to enable it to make its findings upon each issue. If the court fails to submit any issue raised by the pleadings or by the evidence, all parties waive their right to a trial by jury of the issues omitted unless before the jury retires a party demands its submission to the jury. As to an issue omitted without such demand, the court may make a finding or, if it fails to do so, the finding shall be deemed to have been made in accordance with the judgment entered. No party may assign as error the submission of issues to the jury, the instructions of the court, or the refusal of the court to submit a requested issue unless the party objects on the record before the juiy retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which the party objects and the grounds of the objection. Upon request of any party, the court shall receive objections out of the hearing of the jury.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ver Brycke v. Ver Brycke · Programmers' Consortium, Inc. v. Clark

2. “Federal courts have supplied guidance that assists us in our review of the instant case. First, federal courts have held that, where equitable claims are to be resolved by the court and legal claims are to be resolved by the jury, the judge is “ ‘without power’ to reach a conclusion inconsistent with that of the jury.” Gutzwiller v. Fenik, 860 F.2d 1317, 1333 (6th Cir.1988); accord, Dybczak v. Tuskegee Institute, 737 F.2d 1524, 1526-27 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1211 , 105 S.Ct. 1180 , 84 L.Ed.2d 328 (1985). See also 5 J. Moore & J. Lucas, Moore’s Federal practice, para. 38.13 (2d ed. 1988). Second, as the Supreme Court has recognized, “Where there is a view of the case that makes the jury’s answers to special interrogatories consistent, they must be resolved that way. For a search for one possible view of the case which will make the jury’s finding inconsistent results in a collision with that Seventh Amendment.” Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc. v. Ellerman Lines, 369 U.S. 355, 364 , 82 S.Ct. 780, 786 , 7 L.Ed.2d 798, 807 (1962). See also 5A J. Moore & J. Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice, para. 49.03[4] at 39 (1990).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Programmers' Consortium, Inc. v. Clark

3. “Where evidence sufficiently establishes that a shareholder/director of a closed corporation breached his or her fiduciary duty to the corporation by obtaining a patent in that officer’s own name without the corporation’s consent and by exerting control over that patent inconsistent with the corporation’s interests, the Court may properly assign the patent to the corporation, enjoin the officer not to engage in any activity related to the patented object, and require the officer to turnover objects used to manufacture the patented object. This is so because an officer of a corporation has a fiduciary duty to act in good faith and in a manner reasonably believed to be in the best interest of the corporation and all of its shareholders. Thus, the president of a corporation has a fiduciary duty to assign any rights in a patent for an invention he worked on while president of the corporation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stonecraft, LLC v. Slagter (In Re Stonecraft, LLC)