702 So. 2d 1002 - Watson v. Nelson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A trial court has virtually unlimited discretion to grant a new trial when it is convinced that a miscarriage of justice has resulted, and, unless an abuse of discretion can be demonstrated, a trial court’s action in granting or denying a new trial on discretionary grounds will not be reversed.” Heritage Worldwide; Inc. v. Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, 95-0484, p. 3 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/16/95); 665 So.2d 523, 526 ; writ denied, 96-0415 (La.3/29/96); 670 So.2d 1233 . See also, Watson v. Nelson,, 97-474 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/29/97) ; 702 So.2d 1002 ; writ denied, 97-2958 (La.2/6/98); 709 So.2d 738 . Still, “the discretionary power to grant a new trial must be exercised with considerable caution, for a successful litigant is entitled to the benefits of a favorable jury verdict.” Burris v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 94-921, p. 6 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/3/95); 652 So.2d 558, 561 , writ denied, 95-0858 (La.5/12/95); 654 So.2d 352 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 196 So. 3d 776 - Warren v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co. · 792 So. 2d 892 - Johnson v. Missouri Pacific RR Co.

2. “La.Code Civ.P. art. 1913 provides that when a case has been taken under advisement, notice of judgment must be mailed by the clerk of court to counsel of record for each party and to each unrepresented party. The article further requires that the clerk shall file a certificate in the record showing the date on which, and the counsel and parties to whom, notice of the signing of the judgment was made. [[Image here]] Notice of judgment was required in this case because judgment was not rendered in the presence of the parties. At issue is whether the ... [the method used by the clerk in this case] is sufficient to fulfill the requirement of a clerk’s certificate. We find that it is not, the delays for a new trial have not expired, and the motion for a new trial was timely. In Bielkiewicz v. Insurance Company of North America, 201 So.2d 130 (La. App. 3 Cir.1967), there was no clerk’s certificate of the date of mailing of the notice of judgment. Counsel for the defendant admitted that he got his notice on June 8, from which the court of appeal deduced the mailing date of his notice had to have been June 7, the date of the judgment. The deputy clerk testified that notices to all parties customarily went out on the same day but that it was possible the notice to the plaintiffs counsel was not mailed until the next day. Had it been mailed the next day, or June 8, the subsequent motion by the plaintiff for a new trial would have been timely, which was an issue in the case. Because the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 747 So. 2d 176 - White v. White