Chambers v. Graybiel’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably 785 So. 2d 101 - Knowles v. McCright's Pharmacy, Inc. (2001), 756 So. 2d 549 - Morris v. United Services Auto. Ass'n (2000)
44 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 549 So. 2d 840 - Rosell v. Esco · 617 So. 2d 880 - Stobart v. State Through DOTD · Arceneaux v. Domingue · 341 So. 2d 332 - Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc. · 623 So. 2d 1257 - Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp.
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Ms. Chambers is incorrect, however, in her reading of the instant verdict form. These questions do not ask the jury to differentiate between cause in fact and legal cause of the accident. Rather, they ask for a factual finding of “negligence which was the cause of this acci dent” and then a factual question of whether this negligence was a “legal cause of damages.” This phraseology precisely tracks the language of the Code of Civil Procedure for special verdicts. La.C.C.P. art. 1812C(í)(a). Moreover, the court charged the jury as to “legal cause of any injury and consequent damage the plaintiff may have sustained” in the context of the preexisting condition and the potential comparative negligence ... Taken as a whole, the verdict form and the jury charge adequately explain that in order to find liability, the jury must find that the defendants were negligent and that this negligence caused the damages [ 1scomplained of. American Motorist Ins. Co. v. American Rent-All, [ 579 So.2d 429 (La.1991) ]. The trial court was not in error to use this verdict form.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A JNOV is warranted when 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. The motion should be granted only when the evidence points so strongly in favor of the moving party that reasonable men could not reach different conclusions, not merely when there is a preponderance of evidence for the mover. If there is evidence opposed to the motion which is of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions, the motion should be denied. In making this determination, the court should not evaluate the credibility of the witnesses, and all reasonable inferences or factual questions should be resolved in favor of the non-moving party.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“An inconsistent verdict, however, must be read as a whole, with the rule that the judgment shall be just, legal and proper upon the record on appeal, La.C.C.P. art. 2164; Parliman v. Kennelly, 520 So.2d 445 (La.App. 5th Cir.1988). The court may refer to the entire record to construe an ambiguous verdict. Rodrigue v. Ziifle, 288 So.2d 630 (La.1974).”
1 later decision 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.