Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 792 SO2D 992 - Reese v. Summers

Reese v. Summers’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
November 2017
most recently cited

16 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 697 So. 2d 373 - Steele v. Inn of Vicksburg, Inc. · 757 So. 2d 925 - Fielder v. Magnolia Beverage Co. · 738 So. 2d 742 - Maddox v. Muirhead · 566 So. 2d 1266 - Rester v. Lott · 649 So. 2d 184 - Harvey v. Wall

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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “if made conditional upon the jury's finding that such facts existed.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]his Court will consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the appel-lee, giving that party the benefit of all favorable inference that may be reasonably drawn from the evidence. If the facts so considered point so overwhelmingly in favor of the appellant that reasonable men could not have arrived at a contrary verdict, we are required to reverse and render. On the other hand if there is substantial evidence in support of the verdict, that is, evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair minded jurors in the exercise of impartial judgment might have reached different conclusions, affirmance is required. The above standards of review, however, are predicated on the fact that the trial judge applied the correct law.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “If you find from a preponderance of the evidence that an official traffic-control device had been placed at the intersection where this wreck occurred, and if you further find from a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant truck driver Randy Parkman did not obey the instructions of the official traffic-control device by reducing his speed to 45 miles per hour or below, then you are instructed that the defendant is negligent as a matter of law. If you find that such negligence was a proximate contributing cause of the wreck and injuries to the plaintiff, then your verdict shall be for the plaintiff.”
    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.