Cope v. Sevigny’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably Poulin v. Colby College (1979), State v. Ledger (1982)
26 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 State v. Duguay · PEOPLES NAT'L BANK OF G'VILLE v. Manos Bros., Inc. · McMann v. Reliable Furniture Co. · State v. Bennett · Conroy v. Reid
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the contents of the document are a record of matters in fact previously known to, and remembered by, him; (2) the record had been previously made, or seen, by him at a time when his memory of the matters was then fresh ...; and (3) at that past time the record was then remembered to be an accurate record of the matters described.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““. . . the admissibility into evidence of an object or article which testimony tends to make relevant as an evidentiary exhibit in the nature of ‘demonstrative’ or ‘real’ evidence, lies, essentially, in the discretion of the presiding Justice. (Citations and footnotes omitted). “While such discretion should generally be exercised liberally to admit relevant ‘demonstrative’ or ‘real’ evidence which tends to have probative value, in accordance with the general basic principle favoring the admissibility of evidence of probative force, there remains a large discretion invested in the presiding Justice to evaluate whether the probative benefits of allowing an object or article into evidence as an exhibit are fundamentally minimal or trivial or, even if substantial, are nevertheless overridden by other extraneous non-probative factors.” Cope v. Sevigny, Note 6 supra, 289 A.2d at 689.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Morgan v. Paine“To sustain his claim of reversible error in the denial of the motion for new trial for inadequacy of damages plaintiff must establish that, the evidence being considered in the light most favorably in support of the verdict of the jury, . the award is without rational explanation and, hence, is to be deemed a disregard by the jury of the evidence or the result of passion, bias, prejudice, accident, mistake or improper compromise. Id. at 684.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Binette v. Deane
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.