Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 198 N.J. Super. 503 - Neely v. Kossove

198 N.J. Super. 503 - Neely v. Kossove’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
3
states following
August 1999
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Hitaffer v. Argonne Co. · Diaz v. Eli Lilly & Co. · Argonne Co. v. Hitaffer · Ekalo v. Constructive Serv. Corp. of America · Lee v. Allied Sports Associates, 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Defendants further contend that plaintiff’s claim is derivative and entirely dependent upon her husband’s cause of action. Without it her claim may not be prose cuted. To conclude that because it is derivative it may not be instituted unless her husband’s claim is still actionable would ignore the fact that her claim is a separate and distinct cause of action. Derivative means “come from another — owing its existence to something foregoing.” Black’s Law Dictionary 530 (rev. 4th ed. 1957); thus it is the husband’s injury and not his cause of action that accounts for the creation of the wife’s right to litigate. To succeed in her action she would still have to establish through credible evidence the liability of the tortfeasor as well as her damage loss. Her right to do so cannot be affected by the injured spouse’s release of his claim since her right to a recovery is separate and distinct.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Logic dictates that the wife’s action [for loss of consortium] is vested in her and may not be dismissed unless authorized by her. The right ... can only be released by the wife who owns it. Were it otherwise, a husband who refuses to litigate for whatever reason could effectively eliminate a claim that is not possessed by him. [Ibid.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “protect against the suggested danger of double recovery,”
    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.