Chavin v. Cope’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Levine v. Smith (1991), Storey v. Camper (1979)
59 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 Kiernan v. Van Schaik · Pitts v. White · Trowell v. Diamond Supply Co. · Lester Langley v. Turner's Express, Incorporated, Marge Langley v. Turner's Express, Incorporated · Larrimore v. Homeopathic Hospital Ass'n of Del.
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * in order to exercise intelligently his limited number of peremptory challenges and to determine whether ground exists for challenge for cause, a plaintiff in an accident case may make reasonable inquiry whether prospective jurors are or have been connected with the business of investigating or paying accident claims, either as employees, agents or stockholders of insurance companies or claims agencies without suggesting the existence of insurance in the ease. An adequate caution should be given by the court to make it clear to the jury that these questions do not imply either that any defendant is insured or that the matter of insurance or lack of insurance is to be considered in reaching a verdict, [at 782]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Roman v. Mitchell“The requested procedure, in advance of the drawing of the trial jury, it seems to us, differs sharply from the inadvertent blurting out by a witness of the fact of insurance coverage. The latter prejudice may well be cured by an appropriate instruction. At the outset of a trial, however, for the judge to question the jurors in a manner designed to bring out the prejudicial fact of insurance coverage of the defendant is an entirely different matter. Irrespective of whether or not the requested instruction would cure any prejudicial effect, the trial judge should not, by his own action, introduce a possible prejudicial fact into the jurors’ minds.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“When an act of judicial discretion is under review, the reviewing court may not substitute its own notion of what is right for those of the trial judge, if his judgment was based on conscience and reason, as opposed to capriciousness or arbitrariness.”). 55 . See Pitts v. White, 109 A.2d 786, 788 (Del.1954) (”
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.