City of Lincoln v.’s Empirical Analysis
151 U.S. 436 · 1894
Citation profile
159 federal appellate · 10 district · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 259 later decisions (36 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2006 · most notably Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc. (1996), Dimick v. Schiedt (1935)
159 federal appellate · 10 district · 29 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 William Parsons v. Bedford Breedlove · Simmons v. United States · Indianapolis and St Louis Railroad Company v. Horst · Vicksburg v. Putnam · Nudd v. Burrows
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 259 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The plaintiff in error complains that the damages found by the jury were excessive, and appear to have been given under the influence of passion and prejudice. “But it is not permitted for this court, sitting as a court of errors, in a case wherein damages have been fixed by the verdict of a jury, to take notice of an assignment of this character, where the complaint is only of the action of the jury. “Thus it was said in Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433 , 447, 448 [ 7 L. Ed. 732 ], per Story, J., commenting on that clause of the seventh amendment which declares, ‘no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examinable in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law,’ that ‘this is a prohibition of the courts of the United States to ré-ex amine any facts tried by a jury in any other manner. The only modes known to the common law to re-examine such facts are the granting of a new trial by the court where the issue was tried, or to which the record was properly returnable, or the award of a venire facias de novo by an appellate court, for some error of law which intervened in the proceedings.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The statutes of Nebraska require that all instructions of the court to the jury shall be in writing, unless the so giving of the same is waived by counsel in the ease in open court, and so entered in the record of said case; and it is argued that, by virtue of section 914 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, such provisions of the Nebraska laws is made obligatory on the circuit court of the United States for that district, and that hence it was reversible error in the court below to give oral instructions. “But we are of opinion that the judges of the federal courts are not controlled in their manner of charging juries by the state regulations. Such part of their judicial action is not within the meaning of section 914.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the only modes known to the common law to reexamine such facts are the granting of a new trial by the court where the issue was tried, or to which the record was properly returnable, or the award of a venire facias de novo by an appellate court, for some error of law which intervened in the proceedings.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Grayson v. Lynch
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.