McNamee v. Woodbury Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses
Supreme Court of Connecticut
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
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Addington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Horning v. District of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Aillon v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1975
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.