Warren v. Fanning’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “In an action seeking only money damages, a determination that a constitutional violation has occurred, unaccompanied by any kind of damage award, not even a nominal award, does not sufficiently change the legal relationship between the parties so as to make the verdict anything more than a technical victory.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Robinson v. City of St. Charles, Missouri · Robinson

2. “We agree that the law would entitle [plaintiff] to nominal damages from [defendant]_ That does not end our inquiry, however, for the instructions proffered by [plaintiff] and read to the jury without objection stated only that [i]f you find that the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict in accordance with these instructions, but do not find that the plaintiff has sustained substantial (actual) damages, then you may return a verdict for the plaintiff in some nominal sum such as one dollar (on account of actual damages). Jury Instruction No. 14, reprinted in Appellant’s Brief at 9-10 (emphasis added). On the verdict form sheet submitted to the jury, a space was included for an award of actual damages, but no provision was made for a nominal damages award. “[A]ny error in instructions not properly objected to is waived unless it is plain error that resulted in a miscarriage of justice.” Here, the jury instruction on nominal damages not only was not objected to, but also was proffered to the trial judge by [plaintiff]. Moreover, the effect of the incorrect instruction is only that it left the jury with discretion to decline to award [plaintiff] nominal damages. Clearly, the erroneous instruction has not resulted in a miscarriage of justice and does not constitute plain error. We therefore affirm the trial court’s denial of [plaintiffs] motion to amend the judgment to include nominal damages. Although, as explained earlier in this opinion, [plaintiff] would have obtained nominal dama”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Watchorn Ex Rel. Christenson v. Town of Davie

3. “Respect for ordinary language requires that a plaintiff receive at least some relief on the merits of his claim before he can be said to prevail. [Plaintiff] obtained no relief. Because of the defendants’ official immunity he received no damages award. No injunction or declaratory judgment was entered in his favor. Nor did [plaintiff] obtain relief without benefit of a formal judgment — for example, through a consent decree or settlement. In all civil litigation, the judicial decree is not the end but the means. At the end of the rainbow lies not a judgment, but some action (or cessation of some action) by the defendant that the judgment produces — the payment of damages, or some specific performance, or the termination of some conduct. Redress is sought through the court, but from the defendant_ The real value of the judicial pronouncement — what makes it a proper resolution of a “case or controversy” rather than an advisory opinion — is in the settling of some, dispute which affects the behavior of the defendant towards the plaintiff.... As a consequence of the present lawsuit, [plaintiff] obtained nothing from the defendants. The only “relief” he received was the moral satisfaction of knowing that a federal court concluded that his rights had been violated. The same moral satisfaction presumably results from any favorable statement of the law in an otherwise unfavorable opinion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Watchorn Ex Rel. Christenson v. Town of Davie