Mt. Adams & E. P. Inclined Ry. Co. v. Lowery’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

67 federal appellate · 12 district · 5 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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““His duty is to take that view of the evidence most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made — to direct a verdict — and from that evidence. and the inferences reasonably and justifiably to be drawn therefrom, determine whether or not, under the law, a verdict might he found for the party having the onus. If not, he should, upon the ground that the evidence is insufficient in law, direct a verdict against that party. That there is a mere scintilla of evidence is not enough to prevent the withdrawal of the ease from the jury. Such evidence is insufficient in law because so insufficient 'in fact.””

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Felton v. Spiro · Berry v. Chase

2. ““It is strenuously urged that, whatever the merits of the controversy, there was sufficient proof to require the trial court to submit the case to a jury; but no I'ule is better established in this court than that which permits a presiding judge to direct a verdict in favor of one of the parties when the testimony dnd all the inferences which the jury could justifiably draw therefrom would be insufficient to support a different verdict. It is clear that, where a court would be bound to set aside a verdict for want of testimony to support it, it may direct a finding in the first instance, and not await the enforcement of its view by granting a new trial.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Noble v. C. Crane & Co.

3. ““A scintilla of evidence, or a mere surmise that there may have been negligence on the part of the defendants, clearly would not justify the judge in leaving the ease to the jury. There must be evidence upon which they might reasonably and properly conclude that there was negligence. * * * Applying the maxim, ‘De minimis non curat lex/ when we say that there is no evidence to go to the jury we do not mean that there is literally none, but that there is none which ought reasonably to satisfy a jury that the fact to be proved is established.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hardy-Burlingham Mining Co. v. Baker