52 Ala. App. 644 - Curry v. Griffith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““There is presented in cases such as this, two seemingly conflicting presumptions. First, the presumption of the correctness of a jury verdict reached after a full and fair hearing of the evidence. Every litigant has the constitutional right to have issues of fact determined by a jury if such right existed at common law. Article 1, Section 11, Constitution of Alabama. However [Ala.Code § 12-13-11 (1975) ], gives power to the trial court to set aside any verdict of a jury which it considers inadequate or excessive and submit the case to another jury. Such power in the trial court should be exercised with great consideration and caution and only if it plainly appears, either from the events of the trial or from the amount of the verdict in light of the clear and convincing evidence, that injustice will be done if the facts are not examined by another jury. Cobb v. Malone, 92 Ala. 630 , 9 So. 738 ; Montgomery Light & Traction Co. v. King, 187 Ala. 619 , 65 So. 998 ; Yarbrough v. Mallory, 225 Ala. 579, 144 So. 447 ; King v. Sturgis, 45 Ala.App. 553 , 233 So.2d 495 ; Smith v. Winkles [ 49 Ala.App. 454 , 273 So.2d 215 ], supra. “The second presumption is that if the trial court exercises its power of granting a new trial, it properly did so. McLemore v. International Union [ 264 Ala. 538 , 88 So.2d 170 ], supra. In order to overcome the latter presumption, the reviewing court must find that the evidence clearly and fully supports the verdict of the jury. Lee v. Moore, 282 Ala. 461 ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Watkins v. Burks