Newcomb v. Wood’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

75 federal appellate · 14 district · 21 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 160 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It has long been the established law in the courts of the Uni+.ed States that to grant or refuse a now trial rests in the sound discretion of the court to which the motion is addressed, and that the result cannot be made the subject of review upon a writ of error. We cannot think that congress intended by the act of June 1, 1872 ( 17 Stat. 197 , § 5), to abrogate this salutary rule.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hughey v. Sullivan · James P. Witherow Co. v. De Bardeleben Coal & Iron Co.

2. ““It is not disputed that in the courts of the United States the allowance or refusal of a new trial rests in the sound discretion of the court to which the application is addressed, and ihat the result cannot be made the subject of a review by writ of error. The gravamen of the case, however, made by the plaintiff in error, is that the court below declined to exercise Us discretion at all in refusing the motion for a new trial, and excluding from its consideration the reasons filed in support thereof. That the court did not exercise any discretion in respect to the motion for a new trial clearly appears from the statements of the bill of exceptions, as above quoted from the record. Taking this to be a fact, as we must, the only question that remains is whether such refusal by the trial court to exercise its discretion at all can be reviewed by writ of error. To this question we are constrained, by reason and authority, to give an affirmative answer. The right to move for a new trial, and to have that motion considered upon the reasons presented for it, is an absolute one, and the granting or refusal thereof does not rest in the discretion of the court. The making of such a motion and the filing of reasons therefor is a regular and orderly step in the litigation of the cause, and is sanctioned by long-established and uniform practice of the courts, and, where not the subject of a special rule, the settled practice of common-law courts in this country and in England has prescri”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dwyer v. United States

3. ““Two of the three referees only signed the award, but the attention oí me court was not called to the fact when the report was confirmed, and judgment was entered. The omission was amendable, and non coristat but that the amendment could and would have been made, if the objection had been suggested. It would be fair neither to the court nor to the other party to permit the objection to be raised here for the first time. Under the circumstances, it must be held to have been conclusively waived.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Steger v. Orth