Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 38 N.J. 435 - Kulbacki v. Sobchinsky

Kulbacki v. Sobchinsky’s Empirical Analysis

1962

Citation profile

63
cited by 63 later decisions
2
states following
July 2018
most recently cited

62 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Dolson v. Anastasia (1969), Baxter v. Fairmont Food Co. (1977)

62 state decisions

290196219701980199020002010decided

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 Ashcraft v. State of Tennessee · Steiner v. Stein · Hager v. Weber · Mt. Adams & E. P. Inclined Ry. Co. v. Lowery · Melone v. Jersey Central Power & Light Co.

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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[w]hat the trial judge must do is canvass the record, not to balance the persuasiveness of the evidence on one side as against the other, but to determine whether reasonable minds might accept the evidence as adequate to support the jury verdict....”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““A motion for a new trial must be made to the trial judge before tlie issue may be offered on appeal. * * * The reason is that the trial judge has the feel of the ease and is better situated than an appellate court to assay credibility when credibility is pivotal. Accordingly a reviewing court must take into account the views of the trial judge insofar as firsthand observation may be significant, but, having done so, it remains the duty of the reviewing court to determine whether in its view there was a manifest denial or miscarriage of justice. Fisch v. Manger, 24 N. J. 66, 80 (1957) ; Brochin and Sandler, ‘Appellate Review of Facts in New Jersey, Jury and Non-Jury Cases’, 12 Rutgers L. Rev. 482 , 503 (1958).” (38 N. J., at 459-460).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “* * * On a motion for a new trial in an action tried before a jury, the trial judge shall not set aside the verdict of the jury as against the weight of the evidence unless, having given due regard to the opportunity of the jury to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses, it clearly and convincingly appears that the verdict was the result of mistake, partiality, prejudice or passion.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.