Mercer v. Perez’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
529 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 529 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably 27 Cal. 3d 1 - People v. Green (1980), 11 Cal. 3d 452 - Silberg v. California Life Insurance (1974)
529 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 46 Cal. 2d 818 - People v. Watson · 57 Cal. 2d 450 - Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court · Select Base Materials, Inc. v. Board of Equalization · 42 Cal. 2d 621 - People v. Western Air Lines, Inc. · 49 Cal. 2d 652 - Butigan v. Yellow Cab Co.
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 529 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Court also grants the motion for a new trial on the following grounds: (1) insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict, (2) the verdict is against the law, (3) excessive damages, appearing to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice and (4) irregularity of the proceedings by the plaintiff whereby the defendants were prevented from having a fair trial. In making this order the Court is convinced from the entire record, including reasonable inferences therefrom, that the jury clearly should have reached a different verdict. “The specification of reasons are as follows: “1. Insufficiency of the evidence. “The truth of defendants3 statements can only be determined by ascertaining the truth of plaintiff’s deposition testimony. “It was established that Dietrich was vice-president of Hughes Tool Company in charge of finances. Hughes Aircraft Company was a division of Hughes Tool Company. Thornton was employed as assistant manager of Hughes Aircraft Company. Soon after his employment he was notified that all records and accounting procedures throughout Hughes Tool Company had to be uniform. The controller of Hughes Aircraft Company was appointed by Dietrich. Hughes Aircraft Company secured a contract from the Air Force to build a radar fire control system. The contract was for a fixed price but subject to renegotiation so that the profit could not exceed about 11% of costs or 10% of sales. When the contract was awarded, Hughes Aircraft Company had les”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage“[O]ne of the functions of the requirement of specification of reasons is to promote judicial deliberation before judicial action, and thereby `discourage hasty or ill-considered orders for new trial.' (Review of Selected 1965 Code Legislation (Cont.Ed.Bar), p. 81.)...”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]wo purposes are served by the present requirement of specification of reasons, and both are related to the traditionally broad powers exercised by the trial judge in passing on a motion for new trial.... "[O]ne of the functions of the requirement of specification of reasons is to promote judicial deliberation before judicial action, and thereby `discourage hasty or ill-considered orders for new trial.' (Review of Selected 1965 Code Legislation (Cont.Ed.Bar), p. 81.)... "The second purpose of this requirement is to make the right to appeal from the order more meaningful. While the rarity of reversals is doubtless due to the circumstance that discretion is not often abused, it must be recognized that under the prior law an appellant challenging an order granting a new trial tended to have great difficulty in presenting his case. It often occurred, for example, that the notice of motion was predicated on all or most of the statutory grounds, and the subsequent order specified neither the ground or grounds found applicable nor the reasons therefor; in that event, the appellant was left in the dark as to which aspect of the trial to defend, and quite understandably struck out blindly in several directions at once. This process, however, was not likely to illuminate the reviewing court, which remained equally uninformed of the basis on which the trial judge acted....”
3 later decisions 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.