Matuschka v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 state decisions

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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Such verdicts [finding generally on an omnibus question as to negligence] have been sustained in cases where negative answers have been returned to the general question of negligence and the jury were instructed that if they found certain facts to exist they should answer the question in the affirmative, as in Kadolph v. Herman, 166 Wis. 577 , 166 N. W. 433 . In such cases the finding of an absence of negligence presents a different question from that resulting in case of an affirmative finding. The negative answer indicates that in the minds of the jury none of the alleged grounds of negligence was proven.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 3 Wis. 2d 379 - Henrikson v. Maryland Casualty Co.

2. ““It is the function of a special verdict to secure a finding by the jury on each question litigated. In negligence cases each ground of negligence constitutes a distinct litigated question, and proper practice requires that the jury be given an opportunity to find specially with reference to each particular ground of alleged negligence.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Georgeson v. Nielsen