Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 187 Conn. 617 - Bruneau v. Quick

Bruneau v. Quick’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
1
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

52 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably State v. James (1989), State v. Reid (1984)

52 state decisions

2201982199020002010decided

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 Pisel v. Stamford Hospital · Katsetos v. Nolan · DuBose v. Carabetta · Gordon v. Indusco Management Corp. · Gorham v. Farmington Motor Inn, Inc.

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

  1. “In assessing a claim such as that made in this case by the defendant . . . the rule [is] that the `court's review of the evidence in its charge to the jury is subject to the overriding consideration that its comments be fair and that they not mislead the jury, so that injustice is not done to either party. . . . Within constitutional limitations concerning trial by jury, the nature and extent of the trial court's comments on the evidence must largely depend on the facts involved in a particular case and the manner in which it has been tried. . . . While a trial court has not only the right but often the duty to comment upon the evidence . . . it is not licensed to `indulge in an argumentative presentation of the claims of one side.' . . . In a word, `”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[i]nstructions should not be so drawn as to direct the attention of the jury too prominently to the facts in the testimony on one side of the case, while sinking out of view, or passing lightly over portions of the testimony on the other side which deserve equal attention.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[t]here is no question that the defendant took the plaintiff as he found h[im] . . . and that he would be liable to the plaintiff for the effect of the injuries caused by him even though their effect might be more serious than in the case of a normal person.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.