Thomaston v. Thomaston’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
July 1993
most recently cited
12 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 409 So. 2d 784 - Ryan v. Charles Townsend Ford, Inc. · Lipscomb v. Tucker · 374 So. 2d 298 - Sims v. Lewis · Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Ford · 428 So. 2d 1 - Ritch v. Waldrop
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The function of an appellate court in reviewing a motion for a directed verdict is to view the entire evidence, and all reasonable inferences which a jury might have drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Beloit Corp. v. Harrell, 339 So.2d 992 (Ala.1976); Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Ford, 406 So.2d 854 (Ala.1981)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[w]hen a party asserts that a claim is barred by laches in a case where the action is not barred by the statute of limitations, mere delay is not sufficient for the defense of laches. Special facts must appear which make the delay culpable.”
1 later decision 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.