Pleasants v. Fant’s Empirical Analysis
89 U.S. 116 · 1874
Citation profile
139 federal appellate · 14 district · 78 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 359 later decisions (64 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2017 · most notably Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. (1986), 37 Ill. 2d 494 - Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern Railroad (1967)
139 federal appellate · 14 district · 78 state decisions — followed in 26 states
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 McKee v. Bank of Mount Pleasant
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 359 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is the duty of n court, in its relation to the jury, to protect parties from unjust verdicts arising from ignorance of tlio rules of law and of evidence, from impulse of passion or prejudice, or from any other violation of lawful rights in the conduct of a trial. This is done by making plain to them the issues they are to try; by admitting only such evidence as is proper in these issues, and rejecting all else; by instructing them in the rules of law by which that evidence is to be examined and applied; and finally, when necessary, by setting aside a verdict which is unsupported by evidence or contrary to law. In the discharge of this duty, it is the province of the court, either before or after the verdict, to decide whether the plaintiff has given evidence sufficient to support or justify a verdict in his favor, — not whether, on all the evidence, the preponderating weight is in his favor (that is the business of the jury), but, conceding to all the evidence offered the greatest probative force which, according to the law of evidence, it is fairly entitled to, is it sufficient to justify a verdict? If it does not, then it is the duty of the court, after a verdict, to set it aside and grant a new trial.””
19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The decisions establish a more reasonable rule ‘that in every case, before the evidence is left to the jury, there is a preliminary question for the judge, not whether there is literally no evidence, but whether there is any upon which a jury can properly proceed to find a verdict for the party producing it, upon whom the onus of proof is imposed.’ Improvement Company v. Munson, 14 Wall. 442 , 448, 20 L. Ed. 867 ; Pleasants v. Fant, 22 Wall. 116 , 122, 22 L. Ed. 780 .” “Where the evidence upon any issue is all on one side or 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. People’s Savings Bank v. Bates, 120 U. S. 556 , 562, 7 S. Ct. 679 , 30 L. Ed. 754 ; Southern Pacific Company v. Pool, 160 U. S. 438 , 440, 16 S. Ct. 338 , 40 L. Ed. 485 .””
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“" The general doctrine [said he] on a demurrer to the evidence has been correctly stated at the bar. The party demurring admits the truth of the testimony to which he demurs, and also those conclusions of fact which a j ury may fairly draw from that testimony. Forced and violent inferences he does not admit, but the testimony is to be taken most strongly against him; and such conclusions as a jury might justifiably draw the court ought to draw.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.