856 So. 2d 64 - Hays v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Cities of Charlottesville v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. · 623 So. 2d 1257 - Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp. · Maritime Overseas Corp. v. Hae Woo Youn · 628 So. 2d 1116 - State v. Foret
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]n intermediate appellate court, in bifurcated case, is required to reconcile or resolve any differences in the factual findings between the trial judge and the jury by determining which witnesses are more credible, to ascertain which of the triers of fact accorded a more reasonable measurement to the evidence in reaching a decision, and to decide which of the said triers of fact gave a more reasonable evaluation and drew a more reasonable inference from the facts, in order to harmonize the judgments. Said another way, after concluding that a conflict exists, there must then be a determination that the findings of fault and apportionment and the award of damages were reasonable and not manifestly erroneous. In the event that the finding by one fact finder is manifestly erroneous and the other is not, then the manifestly erroneous determination is discarded and the finding which is not manifestly erroneous will stand. Finally, if conflicting findings are not manifestly erroneous, then the court must, after a careful review of the entire record, examine each inconsistent reasonable finding to determine which fact finder's finding is more reasonable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Based on the foregoing, we find that the jury's award of $145,000 in property damages and no general damages is manifestly erroneous. The trial judge's award of $10,000 in general damages and no property damages is supported by the record and is not manifestly erroneous. Therefore, pursuant to Eppinette, supra, we discard the jury's manifestly erroneous determination and affirm the trial judge's award. Applying the percentages of fault found by both the jury and the judge, general damages of $4,400 are assessed against GSU and $5,600 against the Town.”
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.