Haught v. Maceluch’s Empirical Analysis
681 F.2d 291 · 1982
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 1 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Grandstaff v. City of Borger (1985), 49 Cal. 3d 1136 - People v. Stoll (1989)
23 federal appellate · 1 district · 17 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Estate J Bosch Second National Bank of New Haven · Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. · Dillon v. Legg · 19 Cal. 3d 564 - Justus v. Atchison
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[W]hen issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon motion of any party at any time, even after judgment...””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“consider all of the evidence — not just that evidence which supports the nonmover’s case — but in a light and with all reasonable inferences most favorable to the party opposed to the motion. If 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, granting of the motion is proper. On the other hand, if there is substantial evidence opposed to the motions, that is, evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions, the motions should be denied, and the case submitted to the jury. A mere scintilla of evidence is insufficient to present a question for the jury. The motions for directed verdict and judgment n.o.v. should not be decided by which side has the better of the case, nor should they be granted only when there is a complete absence of probative facts to support a jury verdict. There must be a conflict in substantial evidence to create a jury question. However, it is the function of the jury as the traditional finder of the facts, and not the Court, to weigh conflicting evidence and inferences and determine the credibility of witnesses.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“not only was appellant [the mother] located near the scene of the accident, she was in some sense the scene itself,” and”
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.