Cundiff v. Washburn’s Empirical Analysis
393 F.2d 505 · 1968
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 1 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably 42 Ohio App. 3d 6 - Midwest Specialties, Inc. v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1988), Will v. Comprehensive Accounting Corp. (1985)
28 federal appellate · 1 district · 17 state decisions — followed in 10 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 Kirkendoll v. Neustrom · Davis v. Davis · Employers Casualty Co. v. Dupaquier · Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Dial
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The court may submit to the jury, together with appropriate forms for a general verdict, written interrogatories upon one or more issues of fact the decision of which is necessary to a verdict. The court shall give such explanation or instruction as may be necessary to enable the jury both to make answers to the interrogatories and to render a general verdict, and the court shall direct the jury both to make written answers and to render a general verdict. When the general verdict and the answers are harmonious, the court shall direct the entry of the appropriate judgment upon the verdict and answers. When the answers are consistent with each other but one or more is inconsistent with the general verdict, the court may direct the entry of judgment in accordance with the answers, notwithstanding the general verdict or may return the jury for further consideration of its answers and verdict or may order a new trial. * * *"”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a]ny other decision would hamper the just and efficient operation of the courts. It would encourage jury-shopping by litigants, permitting them to decide whether to take their chances on resubmitting the verdict and findings to the jury sitting or remaining silent thereby allowing the entry of judgment and moving for a new trial before a new jury. 7”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Gentlemen, there seems to be a discrepency between the answer to the interrogatory and the verdict. Do either of you desire that I explain this matter to the jury and ask them to return to the jury room for further deliberation?”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bates v. Jean
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.