Nance v. Gall’s Empirical Analysis
1946
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 6 district · 45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently June 2009 · most notably Brewer v. Mele (1972), Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Barrack (1956)
3 federal appellate · 6 district · 45 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 Washington Gas Light Co. v. Lansden · Minnis v. Friend · Koester Bakery Co. v. Poller, Etc. · Carter v. Howe Machine Co. · Schloss v. Silverman
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the jury could not apportion its judgment so as to make a part of it applicable to [the employee] and a part applicable to the [employer]. It could only render a joint judgment, and each would be responsible for the entire judgment.... We cannot free ourselves of the impression that the jury intended, by its verdict, to inflict punishment on both the [company] and [employee], and would not have rendered the verdict ... if the action had been instituted solely against [the employee]. We do not think that a judgment rendered against two defendants should be imposed alone upon one of those defendants. .Under the [J]oint Tort Feasor Act ... he could have collected from the other defendant one-half of the judgment to be paid. To let the judgment stand against him alone would take from him this possible recoupment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The verdict which the jury rendered was a joint verdict and it could not have been apportioned as to the two defendants.” Id. 675 . "Appellee argues that Nance knew that punitive damages might be assessed against him as the case below was tried on that theory, and that the record is devoid of any suggestion that Nance was entitled to or sought separate consideration in the matter of damages. But the jury could not apportion its judgment so as to make a part of it applicable to Nance and a part applicable to the railroad company. It could only render a joint judgment, and each would be responsible for the entire judgment.” Id. 676. (Emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“This result of the hearing before the magistrate establishes the falsity of the charge, and supports an inference that the prosecution was motivated by malice and want of probable cause. This inference could have been rebutted by proof that facts and circumstances, sufficiently strong in themselves, were known to defendants . . . such as to induce a cautious and careful man to believe [the malicious prosecution plaintiff] guilty of [the] charge .... [Id. at 669, 50 A.2d at 126 .]”
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.