Schwartzman v. Lloyd’s Empirical Analysis
82 F.2d 822 · 1936
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 6 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Mounsey v. Ellard (1973), Democratic Central Committee of The District of Columbia v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission (1973)
28 federal appellate · 6 district · 9 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Gunning v. Cooley · Grand Trunk Ry Co of Canada v. Ives · Lord v. Sherer Dry Goods Co. · Greenley v. Miller's, Incorporated · Dodge v. Rush
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Under familiar rules, on motion for a directed verdict the evidence must be construed most favorably to the plaintiff. Thomas R. Riley Lumber Co. v. McHarg, 47 App.D.C. 389 , 390. And the plaintiff is entitled to the full effect of every legitimate inference. Dodge v. Rush, 28 App. D.C. 149 , 154 [8 Ann.Cas. 671]. If, so viewing a plaintiff’s case, there is lacking evidence upon which jurymen can properly find a verdict — there must be more than a mere scintilla — the court must intervene. Gunning v. Cooley, 281 U.S. 90 , 93, 94 [ 50 S.Ct. 231 , 74 L.Ed. 720 ]. Or, as sometimes said, if the evidence is not such that upon it all reasonable men must reach the same conclusion, or if, to put it' conversely, upon the evidence reasonable men might differ, the case is for the jury, not the court. Grand Trunk Railway Company v. Ives, 144 U.S. 408 , 417 [ 12 S.Ct. 679 , 36 L.Ed. 485 ]; Chr. Heurich Brewing Co. v. McGavin, 56 App.D.C. 389 , 390, 16 F.(2d) 334 , 336; Weisenberg v. Hazen, 63 App.D.C. 398 , 400, 73 F.(2d) 318 , 320.” 82 F.(2d) 822 , at page 824.”
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.