Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 164 CONN 463 - Bertozzi v. McCarthy

Bertozzi v. McCarthy’s Empirical Analysis

1973

Citation profile

173
cited by 173 later decisions
2
states following
August 2020
most recently cited

4 district · 166 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 173 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably Montinieri v. Southern New England Telephone, Co. (1978), Scribner v. O'Brien, Inc. (1975)

4 district · 166 state decisions

780197319801990200020102020decided

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 Urban v. Hartford Gas Co. · Cecio Bros., Inc. v. Feldmann · Bernhard v. Rochester German Insurance · Norwalk Door Closer Co. v. Eagle Lock & Screw Co. · Campbell v. Rockefeller

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 173 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “`The determination of whether or not interest is to be recognized as a proper element of damage, is one to be made in view of the demands of justice rather than through the application of any arbitrary rule.'”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “It is true that in certain limited circumstances compensable tort damages may arise from the breach of a duty which may be the outgrowth of a contractual relationship between the parties. Urban v. Hartford Gas Co. , 139 Conn. 301 , 304 , 93 A.2d 292 . Paraphrasing what we said in that case (pp. 306, 307), the test CT Page 9855 would be whether the plaintiff intentionally and unreasonably subjected the defendants to emotional distress, which he should have recognized as likely to result in illness or other bodily harm. If the plaintiff did not intend to cause emotional distress, he is liable in damages only if he should have realized that his conduct involved an unreasonable risk of causing the distress and from the facts known to him should have realized that the distress, if it were caused, might result in illness or bodily harm. See also Restatement, 2 Torts 312, 313.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The allowance of interest as an element of damages is, thus, primarily an equitable determination and a matter lying within the discretion of the trial court.”
    2 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.