Stark v. Yost’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It has been said so many times in cases wherein the question of the excessiveness of the verdict is at issue, that the Trial Court should not interfere with the jury verdict on the ground of excessiveness unless the amount of the verdict is beyond the range of reasonableness. This simply means nothing less than the conscience of the Court must come into play when considering the reasonableness of a jury verdict and it is his duty to order a remittitur in the event he feels he could not conscientiously approve the amount as fixed by the jury verdict. Waller v. Skelton, 186 Tenn. 433, 445 , 211 S.W.2d 445 ; American Lead Pencil Co. v. Davis, 108 Tenn. 251 , 66 S.W. 1129 ; Turner v. Turner, 85 Tenn. 387 , 3 S.W. 121 ; Streetman v. Richardson et al., 37 Tenn.App. 524 , 266 S.W.2d 838 . In making a determination upon an assignment of error relative to exces-siveness of a verdict, we have great respect for the oft repeated statement in our Opinions and in the Opinions from other jurisdictions that— ‘The amount of the verdict is primarily for the jury to determine, and next to the jury the most competent person to pass upon the matter is the judge who presided at the trial and heard the the evidence.’ Reeves v. Catiganani, 157 Tenn. 173 , 7 S.W.2d 38, 39 . Monday v. Millsaps [ 37 Tenn.App. 371 , 264 S. W. 2d 6 ], supra. American jurisprudence, Vol. IS, Sec. 205, p. 622, is quoted with approval in many of our cases, where it is said: 'Moreover, the question of the excessiveness of a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Speight v. Newport