Skadal v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 45 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““* * * This Court recognizes a distinction between a verdict which is excessive and a verdict which is so grossly excessive as to indicate bias and prejudice. Jones v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 353 Mo. 163 , 182 S.W.2d 157, 159 ; Stokes v. Wabash R. Co., 355 Mo. 602 , 197 S.W.2d 304 ; Taylor v. St. Louis Public Service Co., Mo.Sup., 303 S.W.2d 608, 612 . A verdict which is excessive is one in which the jury made an honest mistake in weighing the evidence as to the nature and extent of the injury and in fixing the damages and awarded a sum disproportionate to the amounts usually awarded for comparable injuries under the rule of uniformity. Such a mistake can be cured and corrected without a new trial, by requiring a remittitur of a portion of the amount awarded. A verdict which is so grossly excessive as to indicate bias and prejudice is one in which the jury was guilty of misconduct by fixing an excessive figure as a result of bias and prejudice engendered during the course of the trial. Such misbehavior vitiates the entire verdict, not only as to the amount of the award, but also as to the determination of liability, and cannot properly be corrected by a remittitur, Dye v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 361 Mo. 331 , 234 S.W.2d 532 ; Knight v. Swift & Co., Mo.Sup., 338 S.W.2d 795, 801 , but requires that the verdict in its entirety be set aside * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stubbs v. Kansas City Terminal Railway Company