Gould v. Mans’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently May 2010 · most notably 774 So. 2d 70 - Wainwright v. Fontenot (2000), Mueller v. Mueller (1974)
28 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 Wall v. Van Meter · Hanisch v. Body · Jensen v. Miller · City of Miami v. Smith · Shewry v. Heuer
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An adequate verdict cannot be guaranteed by the courts to every plaintiff who prevails in a personal injury action and we are not willing to adopt an inflexible rule which would in effect render every verdict approximating a plaintiff's medical expenses inadequate and invalid as a matter of law. Such verdicts have been sustained and explained by the courts on various grounds such as: the jury ... does not believe the amount of medical expenses is reasonable or proximately caused by defendant's neglect[.] (citations omitted).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he trial court was following the apparent weight of authority which regards a verdict in a personal injury action for the amount of medical expenses to be inadequate and invalid without an additional award for pain and suffering.... The reasoning behind this rule is explained ... as follows: a jury cannot award recovery for medical expenses and without reason deny recovery for the very injuries necessitating the medical expenses. The grounds upon which the courts hold such a verdict inadequate and invalid vary. In some cases it is said to be inconsistent.... In others the great weight of evidence compels an award for pain and suffering and failure to include such an award in the verdict reflects a disregard by the jury of proper instructions given by the court.... A verdict of this nature is also said to be a compromise, ... the result of mistake, passion, prejudice, or partiality, ... or the evidence is insufficient to sustain the same[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““An application for a new trial on the ground of inadequate damages is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court. Hanisch v. Body, 77 S.D. 265 , 90 N.W.2d 924 . There are no exceptions including a verdict in a personal injury action for the amount of medical specials only as such verdicts may be explainable and sustainable. Our only function, in each case, is to determine whether or not there has been an abuse of discretion. In this respect orders granting new trials stand on firmer ground than orders denying them as they are not conclusive or decisive of any rights or issues. Jensen v. Miller, 80 S.D. 384 , 124 N.W.2d 394 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mueller v. Mueller
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.