Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 173 AD2D 1000 - Rivera v. Pula

Rivera v. Pula’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
June 2000
most recently cited

1 state decisions

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

  1. “[T]he word `significant' as used in the statute pertaining to `limitation of use of a body function or system' should be construed to mean something more than a minor limitation of use. We believe that a minor, mild or slight limitation of use should be classified as insignificant within the meaning of the statute.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “subjective evidence or complaints of pain, unsupported by credible medical evidence or documentation, is not enough to establish the threshold of serious injury. . . .”
    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.