Butler v. Steck’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
2 district · 56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently November 2001 · most notably Pisel v. Stamford Hospital (1980), Birgel v. Heintz (1972)
2 district · 56 state decisions
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 Capital Traction Co. v. Hof · State v. Hayes · Floyd v. Fruit Industries, Inc. · Ardoline v. Keegan · Finlay v. Swirsky
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The trial by jury, however, is a trial in the presence and under the supervision of a judge empowered to instruct the jury on the law and to advise them on the facts, and, except on an acquittal of a criminal charge, to set aside their verdict, if it is, in his opinion, against the law or the evidence. Howe v. Raymond, 74 Conn. 68, 71 , 49 A. 854, 855 . 'In passing upon a motion to set aside a verdict, the trial judge must do just what every juror ought to do in arriving at a verdict. The juror must use all his experience; his knowledge of human nature; his knowledge of human events, past and present; his knowledge of the motives which influence and control human action, and test the evidence in the case according to such knowledge, and render his verdict accordingly. * * * The trial judge in considering the verdict must do the same * * * and if, in the exercise of all his knowledge from this source, he finds this verdict to be so clearly against the weight of the evidence in the case as to indicate that the jury did not correctly apply the law to the facts in evidence in the case, or were governed by ignorance, prejudice, corruption, or partiality, then it is his duty to set aside that verdict and to grant a new trial.' * * * The trial judge has a broad legal discretion and his action will not be disturbed unless there is a clear abuse."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lanning v. Schulte“"We recapitulate from these cases the elements which enter into an award of damages for wrongful death. CT Page 5261-LLLLLLLLL Damages for wrongful death, as such, are allowed as compensation for the destruction of the decedent's capacity to carry on life's activities, including his capacity to earn money, as he would have if he had not been killed . . . In the case of one who is gainfully employed . . ., the destruction of earning capacity may well be the principal element of recovery . . . But damages . . . are not restricted to those arising from the mere destruction of earning capacity. Some damages are recoverable for death itself, even though instantaneous . . ."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“did not correctly apply the law to the facts in evidence”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Labbee v. Anderson
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.