Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 597 SO2D 1295 - Leach v. Leach

Leach v. Leach’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
October 2016
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently October 2016

20 state decisions

100199220002010decided

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 Biloxi Electric Co. v. Thorn · 555 So. 2d 713 - Motorola Com. & Electronics v. Wilkerson · Dorris v. Carr · 575 So. 2d 993 - Purina Mills, Inc. v. Moak · 542 So. 2d 884 - Pham v. Welter

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

  1. “necessarily be decided on its own facts.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “§ 11-1-55. Authority to impose condition of additur or remittitur. The supreme court or any other court of record in a case in which money damages were awarded may overrule a motion for new trial or affirm on direct or cross appeal, upon condition of an additur or remittitur, if the court finds that the damages are excessive or inadequate for the reason that the jury or trier of the facts was influenced by bias, prejudice, or passion, or that the damages awarded were contrary to the overwhelming weight of credible evidence. If such additur or remittitur be not accepted then the court may direct a new trial on damages only. If the additur or remittitur is accepted and the other party perfects a direct appeal, then the party accepting the additur or remittitur shall have the right to cross appeal for the purpose of reversing the action of the court in regard to the additur or remittitur.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The scope of appellate review in an additur appeal is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion.... This Court has further noted that the party seeking the additur has the burden of proving his injuries, damages and loss of income. In determining whether this burden is met, this Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, giving that party all favorable inferences that reasonably may be drawn there from....”
    3 later decisions 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.