Vaughan v. Magee’s Empirical Analysis
218 F. 630 · 1914
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently July 1965
12 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 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 Hollinger v. York Railways Co. · Carothers v. Pittsburg Railways Co. · Reese v. Hershey · Quinn v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co. · Dougherty v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In the ordinary suit on a bond, note, contract, or account, the amount in suit can be stated, goes in evidence, and affords the jury a money basis on which the rights of the parties can be determined. In damage cases there is no fixed sum in controversy. The amount of damages a party recovers is ascertained by the jury from evidence regularly offered and admitted by the court of such pertinent facts as will enable the jury to itself fix the money value of the injury sustained. While among those facts may, at times, be certain definite amounts in the way of medical, surgical, and nursing expenses, and other items capable of exact fixation, yet, when it comes to determining the amount of the damages to be awarded, this is the province of the jury alone, and of a jury uninfluenced by the figures or estimates of any other person as to the amount thereof. The law, therefore, permits no estimate to be given by either party to the jury, even under oath, of the money amount of such- damages, and to get the same character of estimates before a jury by indirect methods is a reprehensible practice. “Whatever may be the practice in other jurisdictions, the courts of Pennsylvania have been stern and unyielding in that regard. Wherever a court, in its charge, or counsel, in addressing a jury, have brought to a jury’s notice that a plaintiff' claimed a fixed sum for damages, it has been adjudged a mistrial. Carothers v. Pittsburgh Railways Co., 229 Pa. 560 [ 79 Atl. 134 ]: Reese v. Hershey”
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.