8 Wash. 2d 310 - Haney v. Cheatham’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 4 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently November 2013 · most notably Clyde E. Clapper v. Original Tractor Cab Company, Inc. And Stanley Williams, Clyde E. Clapper v. Original Tractor Cab Company, Inc. And Stanley Williams (1959), Simpson v. Plyler (1963)
5 federal appellate · 4 district · 17 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 Tompkins v. Clay St. R.R. · Scott v. Pacific Power & Light Co. · 92 Cal. App. 701 - Hawber v. Raley · Beglinger v. Shield · Bino v. Veenhuizen
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.
“Until a verdict is received and filed for record, the trial court may send the jury back to consider and clarify or correct mistakes appearing on the face of the verdict.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The rule is that, even if the writing be appropriately drawn to make it a covenant not to sue, the court, nevertheless, must construe it in the light of the facts and circumstances surrounding its execution to ascertain whether it was, in substance and effect, given for a consideration which is reasonably compensatory. The settlement for one thousand dollars is conceded. Whether this was adequate, is dependent upon whether the appellant could prove the negligence of Cheatham, the extent of appellant’s injuries, his medical expenses, and the extent of his pain and suffering. Obviously, the jury deemed the amount adequate for the injuries sustained by appellant. The first verdict, which was not accepted, denied to Haney any compensation for damage to his car and awarded him only one dollar for personal injuries.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The statute is a sufficient answer to any question as to the right of the court to ascertain whether a verdict submitted to it expresses the true intent of the jury and the right to require the jury to return to the jury room to reconsider a defective verdict and bring in a proper verdict. “If the verdict be informal or insufficient, it may be corrected by the jury under the advice of the court, or the jury may again be sent out.” Rem. Rev. Stat, § 360 .[P.C. § 8522].[ 5 ] “When the verdict is given, and is such as the court may receive, and if . . . the jury be not again sent out, the clerk shall file the verdict. The verdict is then complete. ...” Rem. Rev. Stat., § 361 [P.C. § 8523].[ 6 ]”
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.