Brown v. Arnold’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently July 2001
14 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 Watrous v. Conor · Hunter v. Baldwin · Nezworski v. Mazanec · Langford v. Rogers · Cawood v. Earl Paige & 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The adequacy of amount of a verdict is also generally a matter for the jury. We do not substitute our judgment on this question unless a verdict has been secured by improper methods, prejudice, or sympathy. Michaels v. Smith, 240 Mich. 671 [ 216 N.W. 413 (1927) ]. No such showing has been made, nor is the verdict so inadequate as to shock the judicial conscience. Watrous v. Conor, 266 Mich. 397 [ 254 N.W. 143 (1934)]." Campbell v. Brown, 276 Mich. 449, 454 [ 267 N.W. 877 (1936)]. In Sebring v. Mawby, 251 Mich. 628 [ 232 N.W. 194 (1930)] this court said: "The law furnishes no exact rule by which damages for pain and suffering can be measured. Their determination must necessarily be left to the good sense and sound judgment of the jury in their view of the evidence. It has frequently been said by courts and text-writers that the award of the jury will not be disturbed unless it is so great as to shock the judicial conscience or unless it was induced by something outside of the evidence, such as passion or prejudice. There is no claim of any such influence in this case. In view of the evidence, we cannot say that the verdict was excessive."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The adequacy of amount of a verdict is also generally a matter for the jury. We do not substitute our judgment on this question unless a verdict has been secured by improper methods, prejudice, or sympathy. Michaels v. Smith, 240 Mich. 671 [ 216 N.W. 413 (1927) ]. No such showing has been made, nor is the verdict so inadequate as to shock the judicial conscience. Watrous v. Conor, 266 Mich. 397 [ 254 N.W. 143 (1934)].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“No complaint is made by appellants that the jury was not properly instructed as to the element of damages. No claim is made that the verdict was obtained by improper methods, prejudice or sympathy. There is no absolute standard by which we can measure the amount of damages in personal injury cases. The amount allowed for pain and suffering must rest in the sound judgment of the triers of the facts.”
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.