Suarez v. Sordo’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
4 district · 67 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently May 2013 · most notably Abrahams v. Young & Rubicam, Inc. (1997), Medcalf v. Washington Heights Condominium Ass'n (2000)
4 district · 67 state decisions
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 Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. · Petyan v. Ellis · Haesche v. Kissner · Coburn v. Lenox Homes, Inc. · Doe v. Manheimer
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Before determining whether the granting of a motion to set aside is proper, the trial court must look at the relevant law that it gave the jury to apply to the facts, and at the facts that the jury could have found based on the evidence. The law and evidence necessarily define the scope of the trial court's legal discretion. . . . This discretion vested in the trial court is not an arbitrary or capricious discretion, but rather, it is legal discretion to be exercised within the boundaries of settled law. . . . This limitation on a trial court's discretion results from the constitutional right of litigants to have issues of fact determined by a jury. . . . The trial court, upon a motion to set aside the verdict, is called on to question whether there is a legal reason for the verdict and, if there is not, the court must set aside the verdict.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“In analyzing issues of proximate cause, . . . an intervening intentional or criminal act relieves a negligent defendant of liability, except where the harm caused by the intervening act is within the `scope of risk' created by the defendant's conduct or where the intervening act is reasonably foreseeable.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]here the negligent conduct of the actor creates or increases the risk of a particular harm and is a substantial factor in causing that harm, the fact that the harm is brought about through the intervention of another force does not relieve the actor of liability, except where the harm is intentionally caused by a third person and is not within the scope of the risk created by the actor's conduct.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.