Keyes v. Lauga’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

86 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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 108 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “If the defendants knew or should have known that the witnesses were necessary, then the exclusion of those witnesses was not manifestly unjust. In fact, the admission of the two witnesses may well have resulted in manifest injustice to the plaintiffs, for they would not have had time to prepare their own response to those witnesses’ testimony. In these circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow the defendants to ambush [the plaintiffs] ... by introducing two surprise witnesses whose credibility could not have been attacked by the plaintiffs. 6”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. American International Trading Corp. v. Petroleos Mexicanos · Ballard v. Meyers

2. “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. A mere scintilla of evidence is insufficient to present a question for the jury. The motions for directed verdict and judgment n.o.v. should not be decided by which side has the better of the case, nor should they be granted only when there is a complete absence of probative facts to support a jury verdict. There must be a conflict in substantial evidence to create a jury question.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 610 So. 2d 843 - Dufour v. UNION PACIFIC RR CO.

3. “having had the opportunity to observe the trial, is in a better position than [the appellate court] to evaluate the subjective elements of damage suffered by [the plaintiff]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gonzalo Sosa v. M/v Lago Izabal, Her Engines, Etc. And Tracey Navigation Co., Ltd., Tracey Navigation Co., Ltd.