Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 141 CONNAPP 581 - Sigular v. Gilson

Sigular v. Gilson’s Empirical Analysis

2013

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
May 2018
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Malmberg v. Lopez · Wichers v. Hatch · Ginsberg v. Fusaro · Hall v. Bergman · Connecticut v. Stuart

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.

  1. “A verdict is not defective as a matter of law as long as it contains an intelligible finding so that its meaning is clear.... A verdict will be deemed intelligible if it clearly manifests the intent of the jury.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The first question asked whether the negligence of the decedent proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries .... Question two then asked whether the plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the decedent's negligence .... Question three asked the jury to determine the amount of damages suffered by the plaintiff, by specifically listing the relevant economic and noneconomic damages.”
    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.