676 So. 2d 293 - Shields v. Easterling’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably 697 So. 2d 777 - Coleman v. State (1997), 697 So. 2d 373 - Steele v. Inn of Vicksburg, Inc. (1997)
31 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 Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet · Johnson v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Elaine Jones v. Griffith · 560 So. 2d 129 - Bobby Kitchens v. Miss. Ins. Guar. Ass'n · 658 So. 2d 1352 - Peoples Bank and Trust Company v. Cermack
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This Court will reverse a trial judge's denial of a request for new trial only when such denial amounts to a abuse of that judge's discretion.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“The Court instructs the jury that in the course of human events and the progress of civilization, unavoidable accidents occur, and it is recognized by law that unavoidable accidents do indeed occur and as a result of which people are injured when there is no negligence, and in this case, if the jury believes from a preponderance of the evidence that the accident in question and the resulting injuries, if any, were the result of an unavoidable accident and not of negligence on the part of defendant, Isle of Capri, then it is your sworn duty to return a verdict for the defendant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Appellants next complain of a jury instruction granted at appellee's request which is referred to in the brief as an "unavoidable accident" instruction. A reading of this instruction reveals that it correctly informs the jury that its verdict should be for the defendant if it should find from the evidence that the defendant had been guilty of no negligence which had proximately caused or proximately contributed to the injury and death of [decedent]. The instruction concludes by saying that in such an event (a factual finding by the jury that no negligence on defendant's part had proximately caused or contributed to the injury and death) the occurrence, insofar as the defendant was concerned, was an unavoidable accident for which he was not liable. We do not think the instruction incorrectly stated the applicable law nor that it was capable of misleading the jury, especially when read with the rather liberal instructions granted appellants which submitted to the jury all of the theories of negligence relied upon for recovery.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Tentoni v. Slayden
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.