Ramirez v. Armstrong’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 34 district · 103 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 145 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Clohessy v. Bachelor (1996), Johnson v. Ruark Obstetrics & Gynecology Associates, P.A. (1990)
6 federal appellate · 34 district · 103 state decisions — followed in 12 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. · Dillon v. Legg · 27 Cal. 3d 916 - Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · Sinn v. Burd · 19 Cal. 3d 564 - Justus v. Atchison
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 145 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. There must be a marital, or intimate familial relationship between the victim and the plaintiff, limited to husband and wife, parent and child, grandparent and grandchild, brother and sister and to those persons who occupy a legitimate position in loco parentis; 2. The shock to the plaintiff must be severe, and result from a direct emotional impact upon the plaintiff caused by the contemporaneous sensory perception of the accident ...; 3. There must be some physical manifestation of, or physical injury to the plaintiff resulting from the emotional injury; 4. The accident must result in physical injury or death to the victim.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Lucero v. Salazar · Folz v. State“Duty and foreseeability have been closely integrated concepts in tort law since the court in Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339 , 162 N.E. 99 (1928) stated the issue of foreseeability in terms of duty. If it is found that a plaintiff, and injury to that plaintiff, were foreseeable, then a duty is owed to that plaintiff by the defendant. Dean Prosser defines duty, in negligence cases, as “an obligation to which the law will give recognition and effect, to conform to a particular standard of conduct toward another.” W. Prosser, The Law of Torts § 53 (4th ed. 1971). He recognizes, however, that “there is nothing sacred about ‘duty,’ which is nothing more than a word, and a very indefinite one, with which we state our conclusion.” Id. § 43. The key to Dean Prosser’s definition is the requirement that the obligation of the defendant be one to which the law will give recognition and effect.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“In New Mexico, negligence encompasses the concepts of foreseeability of harm to the person injured and of a duty of care toward that person.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.