Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 138 F.2d 689 - Zarek v. Fredericks

Zarek v. Fredericks’s Empirical Analysis

138 F.2d 689 · 1943

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
2
states following
April 1988
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently April 1988

13 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

10019431950196019701980decided

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 Andrews v. Smith Et Ux. · Fink v. Miller · Herring v. Luckenbach S. S. Co. · Mount Moriah Cemetery Ass'n v. Commonwealth ex rel. Boileau · 111 Pa. Super. 537 - Darby v. Clare Food & Relish 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The $4,000 awarded to the minor plaintiff, Vincent, seems somewhat high. There is evidence of medical treatment following the dog bite which, while no doubt painful, was not serious enough to require hospitalization. The eyesight is not impaired; on the other hand there is a slight droop of one eyelid. There are scars and they may be permanent. There is also testimony from a physician, the mother, and from a former principal of the boy’s school with regard to his nervous condition following the accident. It must be borne in mind that the injuries were non-pecuniary in their nature and to measure them by a yardstick of dollars is a difficult task at best. That is the jury’s function. Here the jury has made its award and the trial judge was not dissatisfied with it. We do not think under these circumstances that the award, while overliberal, is so outrageous that we, as an appellate court, may interfere.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.