63 Tenn. App. 37 - Mize v. Skeen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““... our cases have consistently held the granting or denying of a new trial lies largely in the discretion of the Trial Judge. The one appealing from the Trial Judge’s order granting a new trial is burdened with the showing the action of the Trial Judge was not in the exercise of his function-as 13th juror, but was for some invalid reason. Before the appellate court will interfere with the Trial Judge’s granting of a new trial, it must be clearly shown the action was for some untenable or unreasonable reason. The discretion permitted a Trial Judge in granting or denying a new trial is so wide that our Courts have held that he does not have to give a reason for his ruling. If he does give reasons, the Appellate Court will only look to them for the purpose of- determining whether he passed upon the issue and was satisfied or dissatisfied with the verdict.... On appeal the Appellate Courts must consider all the grounds assigned below and if any one is found to justify the action of the Trial Judge in granting a new trial, such action will be affirmed even though an erroneous reason was given by the Trial Judge. It has been said that the appellate courts are more liberal in upholding the Trial Court’s action in granting a new trial than they are in upholding the Trial Court’s action and denying a new trial.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wasielewski v. K Mart Corp.

2. “The general rule is that the admissibility of photographs is to be determined by the trial judge in the exercise of his sound discretion. Monday v. Millsaps, 37 Tenn.App. 371 , 264 S.W.2d 6 [1953]; Strickland Transp. Co. v. Douglas, 37 Tenn.App. 421 , 264 S.W.2d 233 [1953]. We know of no reason for a different rule to be applied to motion pictures. Generally the courts in other jurisdictions have held motion pictures to be admissible in the discretion of the trial court when they are shown to be relevant and properly authenticated. See annotation in 62 A.L.R.2d 688 . (at 46)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Clark v. St. Thomas Hospital

3. ““When the trial judge functions as a thirteenth juror, he is not only required to approve or disapprove of the verdict but is charged with independently weighing the evidence and determining therefrom whether the evidence preponderates in favor or against the jury verdict. England v. Burt, 23 Tenn. 399 ; McLaughlin v. Broyles, 36 Tenn.App. 391 , 255 S.W.2d 1020 (see cases cited therein).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 63 Tenn. App. 597 - Vaughn v. Johnson