Stephenson v. Steinhauer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"As has been observed, Arthur Steinhauer and Nettie Steinhauer each brought a separate action against defendant for damages on account of personal injuries resulting from the same accident. The court ordered the actions consolidated for the purposes of trial because apparently the actions involved common questions of law and fact, and for the purpose of avoiding unnecessary costs and delay. The causes, however, remained separate, separate verdicts were returned, and separate judgments entered. This order for a joint hearing affected merely the mechanics of the trial. Defendant has not appealed from the judgment in the Arthur Steinhauer case and in fact could not be said to be prejudiced by the verdict in that case. If there is an inconsistency in that verdict that might well be a ground for a motion by Arthur Steinhauer for a new trial but it has no bearing upon the verdict in this case. The verdict in this case involves no inconsistency. However, it is held that consistency in a verdict is not necessary even if the issue were available to defendant here. United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277 , 64 S.Ct. 134 , 88 L.Ed. 48 ; Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390 , 52 S.Ct. 189 , 76 L.Ed. 356 ."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 98 So. 2d 752 - Bowser v. Harder · 227 F. Supp. 849 - Koenig v. Frank's Plastering Company

2. ““. . . ‘The consideration as to whether or not the defendants are insured is entirely foreign to the question of negligence; but the fact must be conceded to have a bearing upon the interest of the defendants in the outcome, and to belong to that class of matter which it is proper ordinarily for the jury to consider in weighing the testimony of witnesses. Yet the disadvantage due to its prejudicial tendency is supposed to outweigh the value of the evidence as affecting the credibility and it is for this reason excluded.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ayers v. Christiansen

3. ““The testimony of a juror may not ordinarily be received to show matters which influenced or affected the jury’s deliberations and ordinarily a juror may not impeach his own verdict although such testimony might he received as to any facts hearing upon the existence of any extraneous influence. . . . ” (Emphasis added)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 343 F. Supp. 155 - United States v. Certain Land of Lincoln