Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 231 Miss. 757 - ARNOLD v. Ellis

ARNOLD v. Ellis’s Empirical Analysis

1957

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
15
states following
May 1999
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently May 1999 · most notably 65 Cal. 2d 166 - Beagle v. Vasold (1966), Baron Tube Company, the Partnership of Hyman Baron and Jay Baron and Hyman Baron, Individually v. The Transport Insurance Company (1966)

2 federal appellate · 38 state decisions — followed in 15 states

32019571960197019801990decided

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 Four-County Electric Power Ass'n v. Clardy · Primos v. Gulfport Laundry & Cleaning Co. · Eagle Motor Lines, Inc. v. Mitchell · Brown & Root, Inc. v. Continental Southern Lines, Inc. · South Highlands Infirmary v. Imperial Laundry 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Defense counsel made a motion for a mistrial because, it was said, plaintiff's counsel, in the statement of his case to the jury, used a blackboard to show that Mrs. Ellis, of the age of thirty-five years and with a life expectancy of thirty-three years, at 20 cents an hour for the pain which she had endured and would endure, would be damaged to the amount of $57,816. The motion was overruled and appellants contend that this was error. "It is practically impossible to prove the exact dollar and cent value of pain in varying degrees. Such determination must be left to the jury, who, in the exercise of common sense and judgment, are vested with the right and duty to make a fair appraisal of the amount which should be awarded as compensation for that element of damage. Counsel, in his chart, was merely stating what he thought would be the damage for his client's pain and suffering. He had a perfect right to do this, as was held in Four-County Electric Power Association v. Clardy, 221 Miss. 403 , 73 So. 2d 144, 151 , 44 A.L.R.2d 1191 , where under similar circumstances, this Court said. `Counsel had the right to state to the jury what he thought would be proper damages for the jury to award for this item, (pain) in his opening statement and arguments.' See also Nehi Bottling Company v. Jefferson, [ 226 Miss. 586 ] 84 So.2d 684 , and cases there cited. The motion was properly overruled.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.