Tillman v. Great American Indemnity Co. of New York’s Empirical Analysis
207 F.2d 588 · 1953
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently September 1984 · most notably Sadowski v. Bombardier Ltd. (1976), 266 Cal. App. 2d 47 - Carroll v. Hanover Insurance Co. (1968)
19 federal appellate · 3 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 Cleary v. Eckart · Milwaukee Mechanics Ins. v. Davis · Culver v. Webb · Buckner v. Buckner · Standard Accident Ins. Co. of Detroit v. Hull
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] special verdict, making as it does specific inquiry as to facts, is a procedural device of great practical usefulness [citation omitted]. For instance, negligence cases as well as many other types of controversies in Wisconsin are customarily submitted to the jury on a special verdict. It is a widely accepted and approved procedure. However, in the submission of a special verdict or interrogatories to accompany a general verdict, federal courts are governed by Rule 49, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., and not by the law of the state. In Cohen v. Travelers Ins. Co., 1 Cir., 134 F.2d 378, 384 , we held that the submission of special interrogatories was a matter of procedure and was discretionary with the trial court. In Marcus Loew Booking Agency v. Princess Pat, 7 Cir., 141 F.2d 152, 154 , we held that Rule 49(b) is permissive, not mandatory, and whether the court will submit special interrogatories is within its sound discretion ....”
2 later decisions 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.