Fisch v. Manger’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 62 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently September 2009 · most notably Dolson v. Anastasia (1969), Dagnello v. Long Island Rail Road (1961)
3 federal appellate · 62 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 Dimick v. Schiedt · James Brown v. State of New Jersey · Hager v. Weber · Town of Montclair v. Stanoyevich · Brown v. State
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“clearly and convincingly appears that the verdict was the result of mistake, partiality, prejudice or passion”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Appellate federal courts, although without common law precedent, have not hesitated to resort to the remittitur where, by its use, the necessity of a new trial could justly be avoided [citations omitted]. The trial judge who denies a motion for a new trial, because the plaintiff has consented to reduce or a defendant has consented to increase the amount of the recovery, does no more than when, sitting in equity, he withholds relief upon the compliance with a condition, the performance of which will do substantial justice [citations omitted]. To me it seems an indefensible anachronism for the law to reject the like principle of decision, in reviewing on appeal denials of motions for new trial, where the plaintiff has consented to decrease the judgment or the defendant has consented to increase it by the proper amount, or to apply it in the one case and reject it in the other. It is difficult to see upon what principle the denial of a motion for a new trial, which for centuries has been regarded as so much a matter of discretion that it is not disturbed when its only support may be a bad or inadequate reason, may nevertheless be set aside on appeal when it is supported by a good one: that the defendant has bound himself to pay an increased amount of damages which the court judicially knows is within the limits of a proper verdict.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Supinger v. Stakes“In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”
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.