Winning a landmark legal ruling does not guarantee winning the underlying case

Evidence

The new trial was long and bitter. It made headlines, and was rich in gossip and scandal. Legally speaking, the outcome was something of an anticlimax. Michele Marvin won a modest victory, so modest it was almost defeat. She was awarded something on the order of $100,000. This was small potatoes, compared to the size of her claim (and considering her lawyers’ fees). Probably she failed to win big money because her evidence was weak. She insisted she and Lee Marvin had come to an “agreement,” but she had no convincing proof. In the end, both sides claimed victory. One thing was clear, though it was cold comfort for Michele Marvin: the law had changed. No moral or legal barrier stood in the way of claims like hers, at least in California. — Lawrence M. Friedman and Grant M. Hayden, American Law, 1905

Categorization

• recurring: this claim recurs 2 times within its source
• XREF: connects to: A victory before a conservative trial court bred misplaced faith in appeal. — Luke W. Cole and Sheila R. Foster, From the Ground Up: Environmental…, 467; Litigation victories alone could not change entrenched voting discrimination — Lawrence M. Friedman and Grant M. Hayden, American Law: An Introduction, 1384; Supreme Court rulings created only the possibility, not the guarantee, of release — Nikole Hannah-Jones et al., The 1619 Project: A New American Origin…, 838

Broader Connections

• Supreme Court rulings created only the possibility, not the guarantee, of release #exemplifies (0.90) — Nikole Hannah-Jones et al., The 1619 Project, 838