77 So. 3d 307 - Marroy v. Hertzak’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 549 So. 2d 840 - Rosell v. Esco · 617 So. 2d 880 - Stobart v. State Through DOTD · Sistler v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. · 643 So. 2d 1228 - Pfiffner v. Correa · 774 So. 2d 84 - Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
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.
“[A] JNOV is warranted when the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the trial court-believes that reasonable persons could not arrive at a contrary verdict. The motion should be granted only when the evidence points so strongly in favor of the moving party that reasonable persons could not reach different conclusions,, hot merely when there is a preponderance of evidence for the mover. The motion should be denied if there is evidence opposed to the motion which is of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial ■judgment might reach different conclusions. In making this determination, the trial court should not evaluate the credibility of the witnesses, and all reasonable inferences or factual questions should be resolved in favor of the non-moving party. ' This rigorous standard , is based upon the principle that “[w]hen there is a jury, the jury is the trier of fact.””
2 later decisions 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.