Kumar v. Lewis’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
7 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 546 So. 2d 371 - Central Alabama Elec. Co-Op. v. Tapley · Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc. v. Sealy · 435 So. 2d 151 - Ex Parte Nettles · 385 So. 2d 1005 - Ex Parte Collins · 547 So. 2d 812 - INDUSTRIAL CHEMICAL AND FIBERGLASS CORP. v. Chandler
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Under A.R.Civ.P. 60(a), a trial court is authorized to amend a jury verdict with respect to matters of form or clerical error. This authority does not extend to substantive matters decided by the jury. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Sealy, 374 So.2d 877 (Ala.1979).””
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.