Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 11 IND 156 - Guard v. Risk

Guard v. Risk’s Empirical Analysis

1858

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
6
states following
July 1979
most recently cited

31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently July 1979 · most notably Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. Falvey (1885), Indiana Car Co. v. Parker (1885)

31 state decisions

1101858186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 Tillotson v. Cheetham · Shields v. Cunningham · Harvey v. Rickett · Dunn v. Hall · Graeter v. Fowler

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

  1. ““ In support of the motion for a new trial, it was shown by affidavit that, after the jury had retired to their room to consult of their verdict, ‘ it was proposed by one of them that each juror should put down on paper such amount as he pleased, and divide the aggregate amount by twelve. ’ All the jurors acceded to the proposition, though there was no agreement or understanding among them that the result of the figures should stand as the verdict. And the jurors having proceeded in accordance with the proposal, and the result being announced, it was agreed by them that that result should be their finding in the case, and the verdict was. returned accordingly. “In this/we perceive no misconduct of the jury. The-law is well settled, that, in actions for unliquidated damages, the jury may adopt the process resorted to in this case to obtain a medium sum to be submitted for a verdict. Dunn v. Hall, 8 Blackf. 32 ; Dorr v. Fenno, 12 Pick. 521 ; Grinnell v. Phillips, 1 Mass. R. 530 ; Harvey v. Rickett, 15 Johns. 87 .””
    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.