11 Ariz. App. 148 - Mandelbaum v. Knutson’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
2 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently July 2001
2 district · 10 state decisions
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 Ahlstrom v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railroad · Wilson v. Sorge · 60 So. 2d 396 - Florida Greyhound Lines v. Jones · Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Parr · 49 Cal. 2d 483 - Connolly v. Pre-Mixed Concrete Co.
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“However, loss of earning capacity, as an item of general damage, can be presented to a jury to weigh all the factors and they, by experience and common sense, can arrive at a proper monetary value, without recourse to actual past earnings. Goldstein v. Sklar, Me., 216 A.2d 298 (1966). In this sense the jury’s task is akin to their fixing a dollar value for pain and suffering. However, this does not obviate the requirement of proof that the plaintiff does have an earning capacity. He must show that potentially, at least, he has an ability to acquire money. % if: ;f: ;fc if: We believe that all that is required in Arizona is that plaintiff show a permanent diminution of earning capacity and his capacity to earn money. This means for example, as has many times been held, that a housewife who has never earned any wages can receive compensation for loss of her capacity to earn the wages for her skills. No past earnings or even evidence of her general value need be proved. [ 11 Ariz.App. at 151 , 462 P.2d at 844 ].”
1 later decision 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.