Zabilowicz v. Kelsey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 68 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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[w]e review the law de novo and owe no deference to the trial court . . . if [it has] wrongly interpreted a statute.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Debra Warren v. Christopher P. Muenzen · 444 N.J. Super. 507 - J.P. v. Gregory J. Smith

2. “A trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deference.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Quaker Valley Farms, LLC · 420 N.J. Super. 138 - State v. Bradley

3. “Significantly, a New Jersey policyholder who chooses the lawsuit threshold may nonetheless sue for noneconomic damages if the tortfeasor is not a participant in this State’s no-fault system arid therefore is not insured for [personal injury protection] benefits. See N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8(a)..... By the clear language of the statute, a defendant who wishes to invoke the limitation-on-lawsuit threshold against a plaintiff must demonstrate that she is eligible for no-fault PIP benefits under either N.J.S.A. 39:6A-3.1, -3.3, or -3.4. Unless the defendant meets this initial burden, the remainder of the statute does not apply. Therefore, a defendant without a statutory entitlement to PIP benefits cannot insist that an injured plaintiff prove a qualifying injury within one of the six categories set forth in N.J.S.A, 39:6A-8(a), even though the plaintiff is otherwise bound by the limitation-on-lawsuit threshold . . . A defendant — such as the one here— who is not participating in New Jersey’s no-fault system does not receive the benefit of invoking the N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8(a) limitation-on-lawsuit threshold as a defense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Stern v. AAA Mid-Atlantic Insurance