Legal Opinion · Concurrence

McNamee v. Woodbury Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided April 24, 1984No. 11587Published

1ConcurrenceArthur H. Healey, J.

I concur in the result because I agree, as does the majority, that it is well settled that quotient verdicts are invalid and I also agree that the directed articulation should be made.1 Justice Holmes once said: “[T]he jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both [the] law and [the] facts.” Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135, 138, 41 S. Ct. 53, 65 L. Ed. 185 (1920). This is not so where the verdict is a quotient verdict.

I write separately because it should be made clear that the inquiry to ferret out the existence of a quotient verdict almost invariably requires…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. Addington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  4. Horning v. District of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
  5. Aillon v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1975

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API