Austin v. Ridge’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
133 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 134 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Burrell v. Philadelphia Electric Co. (1970), 352 Pa. Super. 359 - Hawthorne v. Dravo Corp., Keystone Div. (1986)
133 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 Bellettiere v. Philadelphia · Decker v. Kulesza · 46 Cal. 2d 213 - Hawk v. City of Newport Beach · Sherman v. Manufacturers Light & Heat Co. · Kerrigan v. Detroit Steel Corporation
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 134 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The grant of a new trial is within the sound discretion of the trial judge, who is present at the offering of all relevant testimony, but that discretion is not absolute; this Court will review the action of the court below and will reverse if it determines that it acted capriciously or palpably abused its discretion. Burd v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 401 Pa. 284 , 164 A. 2d 324 (1960); Decker v. Kulesza, 369 Pa. 259 , 85 A. 2d 413 (1952) ; Bellettiere v. Philadelphia, 367 Pa. 638 , 81 A. 2d 857 (1951). This brings us to the central problem, viz., what freedom does the trial court have to review and set aside a jury verdict where the evidence presented to the jury is legally sufficient to sustain that verdict?” “Established doctrine in Pennsylvania dictates that a trial judge abuses his discretion when he grants a new trial merely because he would have arrived at a different conclusion on the facts of the case than that reached by the jury. Hummel v. Womeldorf, 426 Pa. 460, 464 , 233 A. 2d 215 (1967). Where, however, the trial court is convinced that the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence or that the judicial process has effected a serious injustice, he is under a duty to grant a new trial. Pritchard v. Malatesta, 421 Pa. 11, 13 , 218 A. 2d 753 (1966). Our rule may be simply stated; its content is more elusive; and its application will of course require a continuing exercise of judicial sensitivity. The burden of the approach outlined is to treat the le”
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.