Crossen v. Rognlie’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The district court may grant a motion for a new trial where there is substantial conflict in the evidence if in its discretion it finds that the evidence does not justify the verdict. Ross v. Robertson, 12 N.D. 27 , 94 N.W. 765 ; Haslam v. Babcock, 71 N.D. 363, 366 , 1 N.W.2d 335 . * * * “When the court has granted a new trial this court will not disturb such decision if the evidence shows that the trial court exercised legal discretion in the matter. The only question in such cases for the appellate court to consider is whether or not the trial court abused its discretion.' If not, its decision will not be disturbed. ■ ■ (Citing cases.) * * * “To reverse an order granting a new trial because of the insufficiency of the evidence, this court must be convinced that there are strong and cogent reasons for concluding that the trial court was not exercising, legal discretion in weighing the evidence. Durick v. Winters, 70 N.D. 592 , 296 N.W. 744 ; Martin v. Parkins, 55 N.D. 339, 346 , 213 N.W. 574 ; Butler v. Aetna Ins. Co., 64 N.D. 764 , 256 N.W. 214 ."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Olson v. Thompson

2. ““A new trial on the application of the party aggrieved may be granted on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or that it is against the law. Section 28-1902, subdivision 6, NDRC 1943. It has been repeatedly held by this court, that the question of whether a new trial should be granted because of the insufficiency of the evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Pengilly v. J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co., 11 N.D. 249 , 91 N.W. 63 , 12 Am.Neg.Rep. 619; Froh v. Hein, 76 N. D. 701 , 39 N.W.2d 11 ; Haslam v. Babcock, 71 N.D. 363, 366 , 1 N.W.2d 335 ; Burdick v. Mann, 60 N.D. 710 , 236 N. W. 340 , 82 A.L.R. 1443 ; Baird v. Clooten, 60 N.D. 699 , 236 N.W. 356 ; Martin v. Parkins, 55 N.D. 339 , 213 N.W. 574 ; Kohler v. Stephens, 74 N.D. 655 , 24 N.W.2d 64 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Olson v. Thompson

3. ““In the consideration of such motions trial courts are not confined to a consideration of whether the verdict and judgment are supported by substantial evidence. ‘A margin of discretion is vested in trial courts, which permits them, with a view to promoting the ends of justice, to weigh the evidence, and, within certain limitations, act upon their own judgment with reference to its weight and credibility * * ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Long v. People's Department Store