Weidner v. Lineback’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
2 district · 48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently January 2013 · most notably 37 Ill. 2d 494 - Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern Railroad (1967), Henderson v. Maryland National Bank (1976)
2 district · 48 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 Tennant v. Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co. · Morris v. Cartwright · Wilson v. Sorge · Tufty v. Sioux Transit Co. · Devens v. Goldberg
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The verdict was approved by the trial judge who is properly ‘clothed with a latitude of discretion in dealing with this issue. As a participant in the original proceedings the trial court is best qualified to accurately judge the forces that shaped the verdict of the jury * * * (and) a reviewing court should be equally cautious in dealing with a verdict the trial court has approved.’ Tufty v. Sioux Transit Co., 70 S.D. 352 , 17 N.W.2d 700 . This court has no standard by which to judge the reasonableness of a verdict and our review is governed by the often quoted rule appearing in Schuler v. City of Mobridge, 44 S.D. 488 , 184 N.W. 281 , as follows: ‘The damages, therefore, must be so excessive as to strike mankind, at first blush, as being, beyond all measure, unreasonable and outrageous, and such as manifestly show the jury to have been actuated by passion, partiality, prejudice or corruption.’ ” 82 S.D. at 19-20 , 140 N.W.2d at 603 .”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘It is not the function of a court to search the record for conflicting circumstantial evidence in order to take the case away from the jury on a theory that the proof gives equal support to inconsistent and uncertain inferences. The focal point of judicial review is the reasonableness of the particular inference or conclusion drawn by the jury. It is the jury, not the court, which is the fact-finding body. * * * That conclusion, whether it relates to negligence, causation or any other factual matter, cannot be ignored. Courts are not free to reweigh the evidence and set aside the jury verdict merely because the jury could have drawn different inferences or conclusions or because judges feel that other results are more reasonable.’ ” 4”
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.