Strauss v. LaMark’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 51 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In each of these cases there was no jury finding on a controverted question of fact because the issue as submitted was conditioned on an affirmative answer to a prior issue which was answered in the negative. Although no objection to the conditional submission was made in the trial court, it was contended on appeal that the affirmative of the issue answered by the jury was established by the undisputed evidence as a matter of law. The prior issue had no place in the charge if it was conclusively established by the evidence, and the appellant could have insisted upon an unconditional submission of the disputed question of fact. It was accordingly held that the unanswered issue would be regarded as having been answered by the court in such manner as to support the judgment.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hopkins v. Standard Fire Insurance · Bell v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company

2. “MR. CROUCH: Special Issue No. 1: Defendants except and object to the submission of special issue number 1 to the jury for the reason that there is no evidence in this record of the deprivation of any right to work from Bill Hinote. Conversely, the evidence affirmatively shows by the testimony of Mr. Hinote that the only thing that he was deprived of was his ability to work by the injuries alleged to have been suffered by Mr. Hinote. Further, there is insufficient evidence in this record to warrant the submission of special issue number one to the jury; and, further, that the submission of special issue number one is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. The COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Crouch. Now, your (sic) going to have that objection to everything? Mr. Crouch: Can I object to all of them at one time? The Court: Yes, A, B, and C and— Mr. Crouch: Judge, those are boiler plate objections and I am going to make them to all of them. If the court will just let me do that at one time, I can skip a lot of this. The Court: That’s all right. Mr. Crouch: All right.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hinote v. Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, Local 4-23