Fines v. Ressler Enterprises, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is this Court’s determination that Ihli is clearly culpable for spoliation of evidence when she demolished her home. In Fines , the court found the plaintiff culpable for spoliation of evidence when plaintiff gave notice to the defendant that destruction of the evidence would take place, and even under protest, the plaintiff destroyed the evidence .... The Fines court also stated that dismissal can result when spoliation is merely neglectful or willful.... In this case, Laz[z]aretto was not even given advance notice of the demolition. Ihli went ahead on her own accord and demolished her home. It is Ihli’s fault that the home was demolished and she is therefore culpable. Secondly, it is this Court’s determination that Lazzaretto is prejudiced by Ihli’s actions. Ihli claims that Lazzaret-to can rely upon the videos, pictures, and estimates for his defense, and this will not result in prejudice. This is not accurate. Lazzaretto does not have the same information Ihli-does. Lazzaretto cannot see the house for himself or have an expert make determinations in person. All of the inspection must now come through sources that have been provided by Ihli. In essence, Lazzaretto can now only view the evidence through the lens of Ihli. Ihli’s actions prevent Lazzaretto from creating and fully forming a defense to this action. Therefore, the prejudice against Lazzaretto is severe. The last factor is the availability of less severe alternative sanctions. This Court notes that the most se”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ihli v. Lazzaretto

2. “The appellant who is contesting the district court's choice of a sanction has the burden of showing the abuse of discretion, and that burden is met only when it is clear that no reasonable person would agree with the trial court's assessment of what sanctions are appropriate.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Steven Nelson v. Nelson