Zedd v. Jenkins’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably Basista v. Weir (1965), Northwestern National Casualty Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin v. Edward A. McNulty and Walter Scott Smith (1962)
21 federal appellate · 34 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 Hitaffer v. Argonne Co. · Clark v. McClurg · Gilham v. Devereaux · 129 W. Va. 591 - Toler v. Cassinelli · Weatherford v. Birchett
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Virginia cases reflect the view that punitive damages are not given as the plaintiff's due, but are given for the protection of the public, as punishment to the defendant, and as a warning and example to deter him and others from committing like offenses.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Doe v. Isaacs · Baker v. Marcus“`[w]e the Jury, find for the Plaintiff in the amount of $3,000.00.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The original finding of the jury was not a verdict for defendant. It was a finding for plaintiff in express terms. It was illegal in that it contained an assessment of punitive damages without finding that plaintiff was entitled to any compensatory or even nominal damages. Evidently the jury misunderstood, or misconstrued the instruction on damages. As heretofore stated, there is little conflict in the testimony. It is sufficient to sustain a verdict awarding plaintiff a reasonable sum for actual damages . . . This being true, this court cannot render a judgment for defendant. No one knows what amount of compensatory damages, if any, the jury would have awarded if it had fully understood the principles of law involved. Both litigants were entitled to have a fair and impartial jury pass upon the merits of the case, with a full understanding of the principles of law applicable, uninfluenced by the judge, or anyone else. Neither party has had his claim so passed upon. In order to give the parties such a trial, this court ordinarily would reverse the judgment, set aside the verdict and remand the case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Delano v. McDaries
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.