Roedegir v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

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

1. ““ * * * the rule is well settled that the setting aside of a verdict and the granting of a new trial is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial judge, and that the exercise of such discretion will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear showing of abuse. New-comb v. Wood, 97 U.S. 581, 583 , 24 L.Ed. 1085 ; Norfolk Southern Bus Corporation v. Lask, 4 Cir., 43 F.2d 45 ; Paine v. St. Paul Union Stockyards Co., 8 Cir., 28 F.2d 463, 467 ; Mound Valley Vitrified Brick Co. v. Mound Valley Natural Gas & Oil Co., 8 Cir., 205 F. 147 ; James v. Evans, 3 Cir., 149 F. 136, 141 ; Clement v. Wilson, 2 Cir., 135 F. 749 . * * * The trial judge was not without discretion to set aside the verdict and order a new trial merely because the evidence on the first trial was conflicting. He had seen the witnesses and had had opportunity to judge of their credibility; and, if he was convinced that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, or that, for any other reason, it would result in a miscarriage of justice, it was his duty to set it aside and order a new trial. * * * “In the recent case of Garrison v. United States, 4 Cir., 62 F.2d 41, 42 , we pointed out the difference between the rules applicable as to the sufficiency of the evidence in the respective cases of motion to direct a verdict and motion to set aside a verdict and grant a new trial. The rules there laid down dispose of both questions now before us. We said: “ ‘Where there is substantial evidence in”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. One 1941 Lincoln Zephyr Sedan, Motor No. H-107,919

2. “* * * where the evidence is `so overwhelmingly on one side as to leave no room to doubt what the fact is, the court should give a peremptory instruction to the jury.' * * * The rule is settled for the federal courts, and for many of the state courts, that whenever in the trial of a civil case the evidence is clearly such that if a verdict were rendered for one of the parties the other would be entitled to a new trial, it is the duty of the judge to direct the jury to find according to the views of the court. Such a practice, this court has said, not only saves time and expense, but `gives scientific certainty to the law in its application to the facts and promotes the end of justice.' * * * The scintilla rule has been definitely and repeatedly rejected so far as the federal courts are concerned.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jose Ortiz v. Greyhound Corporation and Frank Robert Liberati