17 Mich. App. 733 - Lapasinskas v. Quick’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently September 2013
12 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.
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If prejudicial matters are brought before the jury, no amount of objection or instruction can remove the harmful effect, and the plaintiff is powerless unless he wants to forego his chance of a trial and ask for a mistrial. Once the question is asked, the harm is done. Under the harmless error rule many of these matters would probably not be reversible error even though they have a subtle but devastating effect upon the plaintiff’s case. Perhaps the greatest single advantage to a motion in limine is not having to object in the jury’s presence to evidence which is "logically relevant.” Jurors cannot be expected to understand why they should not be allowed to consider all evidence which is related to the case, and will usually resent the fact that an objection kept them from hearing it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“We have no way of knowing whether the defendants’ injection of this issue influenced the jury or whether the trial judge’s cautionary instruction in fact removed any effect adverse to plaintiffs claim. [Citations omitted.] We cannot say that the verdict in this case might not have been different had this prejudicial issue not been adverted to by the defendants. (Emphasis supplied mine.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.