Schuerholz v. Roach’s Empirical Analysis
58 F.2d 32 · 1932
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently July 2001 · most notably Southern Railway Co. v. Madden (1956), Fazio v. Brown (1988)
32 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 state decisions
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 Gasoline Products Co. v. Champlin Refining Co. · Simmons v. Fish · Norfolk Southern Railroad v. Ferebee · Murray v. Krenz · 38 Cal. App. 8 - Donnatin v. Union Hardware & Metal Co.
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`It is inconceivable that any jury, having agreed upon the issue of liability, should have reached such a determination as to damages. They had no right to consider the subject of damages until they had settled the liability in favor of the plaintiff. The verdict itself is almost conclusive demonstration that it was the result not of justifiable concession of views, but of improper compromise of the vital principles which should have controlled the decision. The inference is irresistible that it could have been reached only by certain of the panel conceding their conscientious belief that the defendant ought to prevail upon the merits in order that a decision might be reached. It is possible that a trial judge might let such a verdict stand for various reasons, as for instance if on the whole it should appear to him that a verdict for the defendant ought not to have been set aside. But it would be a gross injustice to set aside such a verdict as to damages alone against the protest of a defendant, and force him to a new trial with the issue of liability closed against him when it is obvious that no jury had ever decided that issue against him on justifiable grounds. Although the decision of a motion for a new trial rests within the discretion of the trial court * * * it is a sound judicial and not an arbitrary discretion which must be exercised. A failure in this regard is subject to revision.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Such a finding ought not to stand. It ought to be set aside not only as to damages, but as to liability, for it speaks with no greater authority on the one subject than on the other.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“clearly apparent that the issue [of damages] is so distinct and separable from the [issue of liability] that a trial of it alone may be had without injustice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. No. 00-3297
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.