Reznik v. Garaffo’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Anthony's Pier Four, Inc. v. HBC ASSOCIATES · White v. Peabody Construction Co., Inc. · Spring v. Geriatric Authority of Holyoke · Bell v. Mazza · Marram v. Kobrick Offshore Fund, Ltd.
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.
“We enter th[is] order [returning the case to the trial court] fully cognizant of the validity of the defendants contentions that Reznik was largely motivated in commencing this action by his personal animus towards the defendants, an irrelevant sentiment improperly reiterated throughout his filings in this case. It is also clear that Reznik appears to find expression for that sentiment in any procedural maneuver, however frivolous, that will increase the defendants’ attorney’s fees and litigation costs and thus redound to their financial detriment. Even beyond those considerations, the defendants make a compelling request for some relief from Reznik’s harassment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Reznik v. Garaffo
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.