Croce v. Bromley Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for an infant or incompetent person not otherwise represented in an action or shall make such other order as it deems proper for the protection of the infant or incompetent person.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Burke v. Smith · Hoffert v. General Motors Corp.

2. ““We are convinced that Liepelt [Norfolk & Western Railway Company v. Liepelt] does not control our decision here. The wrongful death action in Liep-elt arose under the FELA and not under a state statute, as the instant case did. In our view, this distinction is crucial. In discussing the issue of whether federal or state law governed the propriety of the court’s refusal to give the instruction in Liepelt , the Supreme Court specifically acknowledged the federal nature of suits brought pursuant to the FELA: “ ‘Whether it was error to refuse that instruction, as well as the question whether evidence concerning the federal taxes on the decedent’s earnings was properly excluded, is a matter governed by federal law. It has long been settled that questions concerning the measure of damages in an FELA action are federal in character. See, e. g., Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Vreeland, 227 U.S. 59 , 33 S.Ct. 192 , 57 L.Ed. 417 . This is true even if the action is brought in state court. See, e. g., Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Kelly, 241 U.S. 485, 491 , 36 S.Ct. 630, 632 , 60 L.Ed. 1117 . 5 Id. 100 S.Ct. at 757 and n.5 (emphasis added). In the instant case federal concerns are lacking; this wrongful death action is a statutory creation of the state, and the measure of damages to be recovered, as we noted above, ... is governed by state law. Nor is the need for uniformity throughout the United States, which was ‘[o]ne of the purposes of the Federal Employer’s Liability Act,’ id., 100 S”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Barnette v. Doyle

3. “On motions for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict the Court should consider all of the evidence — not just that evidence which supports the non-mover’s case — but in the light and with all reasonable inferences most favorable to the party opposed to the motion. If the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the Court believes that reasonable men could not arrive at a contrary verdict, granting of the motions is proper. On the other hand, if there is substantial evidence opposed to the motions, that is, evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions, the motions should be denied, and the case submitted to the jury.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ellis v. Chevron U. S. A. Inc.