Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 70 ARKAPP 97 - Garnett v. Crow

Garnett v. Crow’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
November 2017
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Nazarenko v. CTI Trucking Co. · Young v. Honeycutt · Carr v. Woods · 67 Ark. App. 238 - Eisner v. Fields

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

  1. “A manifest abuse of discretion in granting a new trial means discretion improvidently exercised, i.e., exercised thoughtlessly and without due consideration. Nazarenko v. CTI Trucking Co., 313 Ark. 570 , 856 S.W.2d 869 (1993). A showing of an abuse of discretion is more difficult when a new trial has been granted because the party opposing the motion will have another opportunity to prevail. Young v. Honeycutt, 324 Ark. 120 , 919 S.W.2d 216 (1996). Accordingly, he has less basis for a claim of prejudice than does one who has unsuccessfully moved for a new trial. Carr v. Woods, supra.”
    1 later decision 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.