Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 24 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Daub v. Daub.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Daub v. Daub Anchor | green | “when an injury is objective in nature, the plaintiff is competent to testify as to the injury and such testimony may be sufficient for the jury to render a verdict without expert medical testimony.” | 5 |
| 2 | Barbara Kaiser v. Johnson & Johnson | green | “indiana courts will not disturb a compensatory-damages award 'if there is any evidence in the record which supports the amount of the award, even if it is variable or conflicting.” | 4 |
| 3 | Kimberlin v. DeLong | green | “to warrant reversal, the amount of damages 'must appear to be so outrageous as to impress the court at "first blush” | 3 |
| 4 | Daub v. Daub | green | “causal connection between a permanent con- dition, an injury and a pre-existing affliction or condition is a complicated medical question,” | 3 |
| 5 | Ritter v. Stanton | green | “compensation is the no. 20-1534 9 stated goal of a court when measuring damages for personal injuries.' the question, as is so frequently raised in personal injury actions, is how much money reasonably compensates the plaintiffs for their injuries and pain and suffering.” | 3 |
| 6 | Weinberger v. Boyer | green | “physical and mental pain are, by their very na- ture, not readily susceptible to qualification and, thus, the jury is given wide latitude in determining these kinds of dam- ages.” | 3 |
| 7 | Weinberger v. Boyer | green | “while it may be tempt- ing to engage in a comparative analysis to aid us in the diffi- cult task of evaluating the award at issue in this case, to do so would be a significant departure from indiana's historical re- gard for the uniqueness of every tort claim and the belief that…” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.