736 So. 2d 310 - Goodman v. Allstate Ins. Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 475 So. 2d 1085 - McDill v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co. · 634 So. 2d 466 - Belle Pass Terminal, Inc. v. Jolin, Inc. · Belle Pass Terminal, Inc. v. Jolin, Inc. · 429 So. 2d 232 - Cuccia v. Cabrejo · Cuccia v. Cabrejo
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Adequate jury instructions are those which fairly and reasonably present the issues and which provide correct principles of law for the jury to apply to those issues. In making charges to a jury, a trial judge is not required to give the precise instructions submitted by either party, but must give instructions which properly reflect the law applicable in light of the facts of the particular case. . . . . [A]n appellate court must exercise great restraint before overturning a jury verdict on the suggestion that the instructions were so erroneous as to be prejudicial. . . . . The pertinent question involved in deciding whether reversible error has occurred is whether the jury was misled to such an extent as to prevent it from doing justice.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[J]ury charge shows several inadvertent instructions; for example, one charge suggested that the plaintiff had to prove negligence while several other charges stated that Goodman had an obligation to mitigate damages although there was no testimony that he did not mitigate damages. [Emphasis added.] Allstate did not allege failure to mitigate. * * * * * * No doubt Goodman was injured on November 15, 1989. The issues in this trial were medical; i.e., to what extent was he injured and to what degree were his pre-accident injuries/symptoms aggravated. The trial judge's charge, while perhaps not perfect, nevertheless, considered in its entirety, rationally and judiciously spelled out what this case was about and what the jury had to decide. In any event, we cannot say that any instruction, alone or combined with others, was so misleading that it or they contributed inequitably to the verdict.”
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.