Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 504 F.2d 1198 - Galard v. Johnson

Galard v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

504 F.2d 1198 · 1974

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
May 2005
most recently cited

39 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently May 2005 · most notably Mary Beth v. City of Chicago Tikalsky (1983), Huff v. White Motor Corp. (1979)

39 federal appellate ·

3301974198019902000decided

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 Rosenberg v. United States · Dagnello v. Long Island Rail Road · Bucher v. Krause · 138 Ind. App. 141 - KAMPO TRANSIT, INC. v. Powers

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

  1. “'Just as the trial judge is not called upon to say whether the amount is higher than he personally would have awarded, so are we appellate judges not to decide whether we would have set aside the verdict if we were presiding at the trial, but whether the amount is so high that it would be a denial of justice to permit it to stand.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Johnson v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad · Webb v. City of Chester
  2. “Damages assessed by a jury are largely discretionary with it . . . . To reverse the judgment of the trial court, the appellate court must conclude that the verdict was so 'gross' or 'monstrously excessive' that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting it to stand.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Mary Beth v. City of Chicago Tikalsky · Fiskars, Inc. v. Hunt Manufacturing Co.
  3. “The only question before us is whether the district court abused its discretion in concluding that the jury did not abuse its discretion.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Hibma v. Odegaard

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.