DeVittorio v. Werker Bros., Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently April 2015
16 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 City of Elkhart v. Middleton · Indiana & Michigan Electric Co. v. Harlan · Malacina v. Malacina · State v. McKenzie · Lucero v. Lutheran University Ass'n
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When a new trial is granted because the verdict, findings or judgment do not accord with the evidence, the court shall make special findings of fact upon each material issue or element of the claim or defense upon which a new trial is granted. Such finding shall indicate whether the decision is against the weight of the evidence or whether it is clearly erroneous as contrary to or not supported by the evidence; if the decision is found to be against the weight of the evidence, the findings shall relate the supporting and opposing evidence to each issue upon which a new trial is granted; if the decision is found to be clearly erroneous as contrary to or not supported by the evidence, the findings shall show why judgment was not entered upon the evidence.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Chafin v. Grayson · Neher v. Hobbs“The court must then state its reasons for granting the new trial by making special findings.... (Tjhe purpose of these requirements is to provide the parties and the reviewing court with the theory of the trial court's decision.”); Hardy v. Britt-Tech Corp., 378 N.W.2d 307, 310 (Iowa Ct.App.1985); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-259 (e); Ky. R. Civ. P. 59.04; Burris v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 652 So.2d 558 (La.Ct.App.1995), writ denied, 654 So.2d 352 (La.1995) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“without reason or ... based upon impermissible reasons or considerations.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ollis v. Knecht
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.