Jurgensen v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 district · 12 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A] plaintiffs collateral source of income 'cannot be inquired into as part of a defendant's case, because of the danger that the jury may be inclined to ... reduce a damage award, when it learns that plaintiffs loss is entirely or partially covered.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Leitinger v. DBart, Inc. · Cruz v. Groth

2. “[t]he majority states that the reasoning behind the collateral source rule is to eliminate “the danger that the jury may be inclined to ... reduce [the plaintiffs] damage award, when it learns that the plaintiffs loss is entirely or partially covered.” See Moses [v. Union Pacific R.R.], 64 F.3d [413] at 416 [(8th Cir. 1995) ]. But this rule should not provide a shield for the introduction of evidence which has nothing to do with the determination of the damages amount. There is no question that [the plaintiff herein] is entitled to recover damages. On the other hand, there is also no dispute under our settled law that both parties are entitled to a fair trial. See, e.g., Black v. Class, 1997 SD 22, ¶ 24 , 560 N.W.2d 544, 550 (noting that while a party is not entitled to a perfect trial, they are entitled to a fair trial). We have previously held that “[t]rials are a search for the truth as determined by the jury based upon all the evidence.” Tunender v. Minnaert, 1997 SD 62, ¶ 28 , 563 N.W.2d 849, 855 . If the truth that [the plaintiff] was trying to show the jury that he was living in poverty, then [the defendant] should have been allowed to challenge that claim, notwithstanding the collateral source rule. In other words, based upon this record, [the plaintiff] has opened the door and [the defendant] should be allowed to come in and challenge evidence which has a potential, if not strong possibility, of inciting the jury. This Court should not allow the collateral source rul”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Peters v. Wooten

3. “[T]o obtain a reversal for failure to give a requested instruction, an appellant has the burden of proving that the jury might and probably would have returned a different verdict had the proposed instruction been given.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 700 F. Supp. 2d 1141 - McELGUNN v. CUNA MUT. INS. SOC.