White v. Conoco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
710 F.2d 1442 · 1988
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 46 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently August 2010 · most notably Lusby v. Stores, Inc. (1984), Lamon v. City of Shawnee (1992)
14 federal appellate · 46 district ·
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 Gray v. United States · Rasmussen Drilling, Inc., a Colorado Corporation Licensed to Do Business in Wyoming v. Kerr-Mcgee Nuclear Corporation and Kerr-Mcgee Corporation · Doss Oil Royalty Co. v. Texas Company · Fox Petroleum Co. v. Booker
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We undertake our review of the evidence in the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party ... with the rules firmly in mind that the appellate court does not retry the facts and that the party seeking to set aside the jury verdict must demonstrate trial errors which constitute prejudicial error or that the verdict is not based on substantial evidence ... Jury findings on sharply conflicting evidence are conclusively binding on appeal inasmuch as jurors are charged with the exclusive duty of assessing the credibility of witnesses and determining the weight to be given to their testimony.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“However, '[j]ury findings on sharply conflicting evidence are conclusively binding on appeal inasmuch as jurors are charged with the exclusive duty of assessing the credibility of witnesses and determining the weight to be given to their testimony.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“willfully, wantonly or in reckless disregard of the rights of another, resulting in injury.”
1 later decision 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.