Legal Opinion

Duguay v. Gelinas

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided June 29, 1962No. 5000PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKenison, C. J.

The principal issue in this case is whether counsel in argument to the jury may use a mathematical formula by stating that specific sums per day, hour or minute may be allowed as damages for pain and suffering, or that definite amounts should be allowed for component parts of the total injuries. This issue has not been decided in this state although it has received extensive consideration in other jurisdictions. Annot. 60 A.L.R. 2d 1347. The advantages and disadvantages of such arguments, the necessity for and the dangers flowing from such arguments and their general propriety or impropriety…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Faught Ex Rel. Faught v. WashamSupreme Court of Missouri · 1959
  2. Seffert v. Los Angeles Transit LinesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Henne v. BalickSupreme Court of Delaware · 1958
  4. Caley v. ManickeIllinois Supreme Court · 1962
  5. Crum v. WardWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1961

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Carson v. MaurerSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1980
  2. Norwilton Murray v. Fairbanks Morse, Beloit Power Systems, Inc., in No. 78-2224. Cross Appeal of Norwilton Murray, in No. 78-2225Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1979
  3. Beagle v. VasoldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1966
  4. Baron Tube Company, the Partnership of Hyman Baron and Jay Baron and Hyman Baron, Individually v. The Transport Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1966
  5. Horner v. FlynnSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1975

12 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