Apuzzo v. Seneco’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 12 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In determining whether the combined recovery is excessive, the basic question is whether it falls somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of just damages or whether the size [of the combined recovery] so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury [was] influenced by partiality, prejudice, mistake or corruption.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lanier v. Hochman, No. Cv 94 0533324s (Jun. 19, 1998)

2. “Connecticut follows the rule that payments from a collateral source to an injured plaintiff may not be considered in mitigation of damages. Healy v. White, 173 Conn. 438, 448 , 378 A.2d 540 (1977); Gorham v. Farmington Motor Inn, Inc., 159 Conn. 576, 579 , 271 A.2d 94 (1970); 22 Am.Jur.2d, Damages § 206; annot., 19 A.L.R.2d 557 , 561 § 3....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 640 F. Supp. 6 - Savona v. General Motors Corp.