Garbutt v. LaFarnara’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
November 2012
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
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.
“I write because I conclude Ms. LaFar-nara’s attorney ... engaged in improper closing argument, which should be a basis for a new trial. But for case law which appears to require a contemporaneous objection to each instance of improper argument, I would find that the issue was properly preserved by a motion for mistrial. [[Image here]] I also agree the trial court properly analyzed the issue of improper argument based on the case law from this court. It is that case law with which I disagree. The trial court set forth fourteen instances of improper argument in the order denying a new trial. Because there were no contemporaneous objections to these instances of improper argument, the trial court tested each on the basis of fundamental error. Before the final argument concluded, and after the instances of improper argument, Mr. Garbutt’s counsel moved for mistrial on the basis of improper argument. I would like to hold that this preserved the issue; a finding of fundamental error was not required; the trial court should have granted a mistrial; and it was therefore error to deny a new trial. [[Image here]] In this case, Mr. Garbutt listed thirty-four alleged instances of improper argument in the motion for new trial. The trial court agreed that in fourteen instances the argument by Ms. LaFar-nara’s counsel was improper. I conclude at least some of the remaining twenty were improper or borderline. Most trial lawyers would hesitate to interrupt closing argument thirty-four times, ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.