Coho Resources, Inc. v. McCarthy’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
35 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 568 So. 2d 1173 - Roundtree v. State · 431 So. 2d 475 - City of Jackson v. Locklar · Magee v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line · 603 So. 2d 330 - Warwick v. Matheney · 725 So. 2d 220 - Higgins v. State
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Case law unequivocally holds that the trial judge is in the best position for determining the prejudicial effect of an objectionable remark. The judge is provided considerable discretion to determine whether the remark is so prejudicial that a mistrial should be declared. Where serious and irreparable damage has not resulted, the judge should admonish the jury then and there to disregard the impropriety.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hendon v. Lang · Massey v. State“An award of prejudgment interest rests in the discretion of the awarding judge. Under Mississippi law, prejudgment interest may be allowed in cases where the amount due is liquidated when the claim is originally made or where the denial of a claim is frivolous or in bad faith. No award of prejudgment interest may rationally be made where the principal amount has not been fixed prior to judgment.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“If you find from a preponderance of the evidence in this case that 1. The defendants were in possession or control of the premises at 781 Mannsdale Road, Madison, Mississippi as the owners, and 2. the plaintiff was an invitee of the defendants, and 3. the defendants' own negligence caused the defendants' dog not to be restrained from plaintiff's work area on the premises, which was a dangerous condition on the premises, and 4. the plaintiff was injured by the defendants' dog causing the ladder to fall with the plaintiff, and 5. the defendants' negligence was a contributing proximate cause of the plaintiff's accident and injuries then you shall find for the plaintiff. However, if you believe that the plaintiff has failed to show any one of these elements by a preponderance of the evidence in this case, then your verdict shall be for the defendant.”
2 later decisions 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.