Menkowitz, E. v. Peerless Publications, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2017
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. · St. Amant v. Thompson · Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. · Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc.
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“we must consider the evidence, together with all favorable inferences drawn therefrom, in a light most favorable to the verdict winner. Our standard of review when considering motions for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict are identical. We will reverse a trial court's grant or denial of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict only when we find an abuse of discretion or an error of law that controlled the outcome of the case. Further, the standard of review for an appellate court is the same as that for a trial court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[O]ne, the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and/or two, the evidence is such that no two reasonable minds could disagree that the outcome should have been rendered in favor of the movant. With the first, the court reviews the record and concludes that even with all factual inferences decided adverse to the movant[,] the law nonetheless requires a verdict in his favor, whereas the second, the court reviews the evidentiary record and concludes that the evidence was such that a verdict for the movant was beyond peradventure.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“). In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, however, the trial court found precisely to the contrary, quoting the following testimony in the record relating to his belief about Dr. Menkowitz's sexual improprieties: Counsel: Did you read an Article that accused him of professional misconduct with respect to his treatment of an elderly, female patient? Krawitz: I did. Trial Court Opinion, 9/19/2014, at 26 (quoting N.T., 4/15/2014, at 361). Attorney Krawitz further testified that he had read the Article in the Mercury. N.T., 4/15/2014, at 363 (”
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.