Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 82 N.J. 336 - Roman v. Mitchell

Roman v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

90
cited by 90 later decisions
10
states following
July 2015
most recently cited

4 district · 83 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably State v. Gilmore (1986), Waldorf v. Shuta (1998)

4 district · 83 state decisions — followed in 10 states

4701980199020002010decided

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 State v. Manley · Kiernan v. Van Schaik · Krengel v. Midwest Automatic Photo, Inc. · 390 F. Supp. 624 - Porche v. Gulf Mississippi Marine Corporation · 70 Wis. 2d 189 - McGowan v. Story

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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “a jury informed of the legal effect of its findings as to percentages of negligence in a comparative negligence trial is better able to fulfill its fact finding function.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'a jury in a comparative negligence situation should be given an ultimate outcome charge so that its deliberations on percentages of negligence will not be had in a vacuum, or possibly based on a mistaken notion of how the [comparative negligence] statute works.'”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “a jury, motivated by bias or sympathy, might attempt to manipulate the apportionment of negligence to achieve a result that may seem desirable to it.”
    2 later decisions 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.