Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 248 CONN 508 - Ham v. Greene

Ham v. Greene’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

101
cited by 101 later decisions
1
states following
January 2019
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 8 district · 91 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 101 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Shay v. Rossi (2000), Hi-Ho Tower, Inc. v. Com-Tronics, Inc. (2000)

2 federal appellate · 8 district · 91 state decisions

930199920002010decided

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

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Brady v. State of Maryland · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Franks v. Delaware

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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A conclusion that the jury exercised merely poor judgment is likewise insufficient. . . . The ultimate test which must be applied to the verdict by the trial court is whether the jury's award falls somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of just damages or whether the size of the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury were influenced by partiality, prejudice, mistake or corruption.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “right to have factual issues resolved by the jury. . . . embraces the determination of damages when there is room for a reasonable difference of opinion among fair-minded persons as to the amount that should be awarded. . . . The amount of a damage award is a matter peculiarly within the province of the trier of fact, in this case, the jury. . . . The size of the verdict alone does not determine whether it is excessive.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “verdict will be set aside and judgment directed only if [the court finds] that the jury could not reasonably and legally have reached their conclusion.”
    7 later decisions 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.