Miller v. Hernandez’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably State v. Wright (1999), Grynberg v. Citation Oil & Gas Corp. (1997)
36 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 Doris R. Edwards, Etc., Cross-Appellant v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, Cross-Appellees · Wheeler v. John Deere Co. · Bartak v. Bell-Galyardt & Wells, Inc. · Curtis v. Schwartzman Packing Company · Schoenrock v. Tappe
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The court may require a jury to return only a special verdict in the form of a special written finding upon each issue of fact. In that event the court may submit to the jury written questions susceptible of categorical or other brief answer or may submit written forms of the several special findings which might properly be made under the pleadings and evidence; or it may use such other method of submitting the issues and requiring the written findings thereon as it deems most appropriate.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“`[t]his Court is not free to reweigh the evidence or gauge the credibility of the witnesses.... If the jury's verdict can be explained with reference to the evidence, rather than by juror passion, prejudice or mistake of law, the verdict should be affirmed.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“If the jury’s verdict can be explained with reference to the evidence, rather than by juror passion, prejudice or mistake of law, the verdict should be affirmed. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, we cannot say that the jury’s award was a result of passion or prejudice or that the jury has palpably mistaken the rules of law by which damages in this case are to be measured.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Tunender v. Minnaert
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.