Vicksburg v. Putnam’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

169 federal appellate · 19 district · 111 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 413 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In the courts of the United States as in those of England, from which our practice was derived, the judge, in submitting a case to the jury, may, at his discretion, whenever he thinks it necessary to assist them in arriving at a just conclusion, comment upon the evidence, call their attention to parts of it which he thinks important, and express his opinion upon the facts; # * *»”

   14 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rucker v. Wheeler · California Insurance v. Union Compress Co.

2. “. “In an action for a personal Injury, the plaintiff Is entitled to recover compensation, so far as It Is susceptible of an estimate in money, for the loss and damage caused to him by the defendant’s negligence, including not only expenses incurred for medical attendance, and a reasonable sum for his pain and suffering, but also a fair recompense for the loss of what he would otherwise have earned in his trade or profession, and has been deprived of tha capacity of earning toy the wrongful act of the defendant.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Southern Pac. Co. v. Hall · Ft. Smith W. R. Co. v. Green

3. ““In order to assist the jury in making such an estimate, standard life and annuity tables, showing at any age the probable duration of life, and the present value of a life annuity, are competent evidence. . . . But it has never been held that the rules to be derived from such tables or computations must be the absolute guides of the judgment and conscience of the jury. On the contrary, in the important and much considered case of Phillips v. London & S. W. Ry., above cited, the judges strongly approved the usual practice of instructing the jury in general terms to award a fair and reasonable compensation, taking into consideration what the plaintiff’s income would probably have been, how long it would have lasted, and all the contingencies to which it was liable; and as strongly deprecated undertaking to bind them by precise mathematical rules in deciding a question involving so many contingencies incapable of exact estimate or proof.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Monessen Southwestern Railway Co. v. Morgan · Suell v. Jones