Getter v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
66 F.3d 1119 · 1995
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 15 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2019 · most notably United States v. Martinez-Salazar (2000), Wolfgang v. Mid-America Motorsports, Inc. (1997)
39 federal appellate · 15 district · 6 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1870 · 28 U.S.C. § 2111
Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · Kotteakos v. United States · Swain v. State of Alabama · Carnegie v. United States · McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'clearly, decidedly or overwhelmingly against the weight of the evidence.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Linda Hansen, Monte T. Hansen v. Sea Ray Boats, Inc., Monte C. Hansen, Linda K. Hansen, Monte T. Hansen, Duane Jess Humphries, Carol Ravarino, Richard Ravarino v. Sea Ray Boats, Inc., Brunswick Corp., a Delaware Corporation Southwest Marine, an Arizona Corporation Professional Mariner, a California Corporation Newmark Products, No. 94-4252 · Crisswell v. The Ridge Tool Company“We review the district court’s denial of a Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo, applying the same legal standard as the district court. We shall review all the evidence in the record, construe the evidence and inferences most favorably to the nonmoving party, and refrain from making credibility determinations and weighing evidence. Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate only if the evidence points but one way and is susceptible to no reasonable inferences which may support the opposing party’s position.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[C]ourts have presumed bias in extraordinary situations where a prospective juror has had a direct financial interest in the trial’s outcome, or where the prospective juror was an employee of a party to a lawsuit. In these situations, the relationship between the prospective juror and a party to the lawsuit points so sharply to bias in the particular juror that even the juror’s own assertions of impartiality must be discounted in ruling on a challenge for cause.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.