Novak v. Gramm’s Empirical Analysis
469 F.2d 430 · 1972
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently May 2014 · most notably Hicks v. Brown Group, Inc. (1990), Wentling v. Medical Anesthesia Services (1985)
18 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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 Dimick v. Schiedt · Lehigh Valley Cooperative Farmers, Inc. v. United States · Solomon Dehydrating Company, Incorporated v. Clarence R. Guyton, Central Greyhound Lines, Incorporated, and the Greyhound Corporation · Simmons v. Avisco, Local 713, Textile Workers Union of America · Bankers Life & Casualty Company v. C. M. Kirtley, Trustee in Corporate Reorganization Proceedings of Automatic Washer Company
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n our opinion, inadequacy or excessiveness of a verdict is basically, and should be, a matter for the trial court which has had the benefit of hearing the testimony and of observing the demeanor of the witnesses and which knows the community and its standards; that this is a responsibility which, for better working of the judicial process and for other seemingly obvious reasons, is best placed upon its shoulders; and that we shall continue to consider review, as we have said before, not routinely and in every case, but only in those rare situations where we are pressed to conclude that there is “plain injustice” or a “monstrous” or “shocking” result.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The technique used by the expert witness was to add plaintiff’s projected lifetime net earnings and the replacement cost of her normal household duties, and then reduce the total to its present dollar value. Such a computation may have value for economists, but it is not an indisputable measure of legal damages. The jury was not bound to accept the assumptions upon which these computations were based. The mechanical extrapolation of these assumptions into quantified totals was, therefore, merely evidence for the jury to consider, not proof of a mathematical certainty by which they were bound. Novak v. Gramm, 469 F.2d at 433.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.