Gleaton v. Green’s Empirical Analysis
156 F.2d 459 · 1946
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently June 1980
7 federal appellate · 1 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 James Stewart & Co. v. Newby · Haynes v. Graham · Cox v. Employers Liability Assur. Corp. · Jupollo Public Service Co. v. Grant · Vollington v. Southern Paving Const. Co.
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The general principle that the voluntary or intentional introduction into evidence, either directly or indirectly, by the plaintiff of the fact that a defendant in a tort action is protected by liability insurance, is prejudicial error and grounds for a mistrial, is too well settled to warrant extensive citation of authority. James Stewart & Co. v. Newby, 4 Cir., 266 F. 287 ; Jupollo Public Service Co. v. Grant, 4 Cir., 42 F.2d 18 ; Haynes v. Graham, 192 S.C. 382 , 6 S.E.2d 903 ; Cox v. Employers Liability Ins. Corporation, 191 S.C. 233, 196 S.E. 549 . This rule should not be extended, however, to permit the party to obtain a mistrial merely because a witness very incidentally interjects a casual and ambiguous reference to insurance into an unresponsive answer. In such cases the usual procedure is that the judge will instruct the jury to disregard the testimony and strike it from the record. Vollington v. Southern Paving Con struction Co., 166 S.C. 448 , 165 S.E. 184 . The instant case would seem to be at the extreme in the range of cases where the prejudice would not seem to require the granting of a mistrial. The witness’ reference to insurance was casual, oblique and in no way responsive to the question asked. * * * Under these circumstances, we are convinced that it was not error tb deny defendant’s motion for a mistrial. * * * We note again that defendant never asked for any * * * (cautionary instructions) though particularly accorded an opportunity to do so. 156 F.2d at”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.