Counts v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 74 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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * The principle upon which this practice is based, as shown by these authorities, is that, when there is no substantial evidence to support a verdict for more than a certain maximum amount, the result may be due to error or mistake of the jury and not passion or prejudice. When that is the situation, the Court, in determining the maximum amount authorized by the evidence, does not award or fix the damages but only says that if the jury had given such maximum amount then its verdict could have properly been permitted to stand. It is, therefore, proper to permit the plaintiff to elect between accepting a judgment for such amount, by remitting the excess, or having a new trial. See Kennon v. Gilmer, 131 U.S. 22 , 9 S.Ct. 696 , 33 L.Ed. 110 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Walton v. United States Steel Corp.

2. “The jury obviously needed further information and it was the duty of the judge to furnish it. Certainly our system of written instructions does not go so far as to re quire a trial judge to stand mute before the jury when they make such a request for information (citation omitted). There was nothing incorrect in what the judge said to the jury, and if defendant considered that more specific directions were necessary, it should have offered an additional instruction (citation omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Martin v. Durham

3. ““Upon a further consideration of the question, we believe that in cases arising in State Courts under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq., all procedural matters, including review of verdicts for excessiveness, are governed by the law of the forum and not by the Federal Decisional Law.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Vivian v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co.