Plank v. Summers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 federal appellate · 24 district · 66 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 126 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““If, by their services, the appellants paid for the medical and hospital expenses, certainly the value of these are proper items for the jury to consider in arriving at the amount of damages to be paid by the appellee.””

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Aydlett v. Haynes · Dutta v. State Farm Insurance

2. “In Maryland, in City Pass. Ry. Co. v. Baer, (1899), 90 Md. 97 [ 44 A. 992 ], in a suit for injuries sustained in attempting to board a trolley car, it was held that any sick benefits received by the plaintiff from any source other than the defendant were not to be considered by the jury in arriving at their verdict. In Chesapeake Iron Works v. Hochsehild, (1913), 119 Md. 303 , 86 A. 345 , this Court held that in a suit for damages the fact of insurance could not be set up in mitigation of damages and it was no defense that the injured party had been indemnified by such insurance although he may have collected all or a part of it. In American Paving & Con. Co. v. Davis, (1916), 127 Md. 477 [ 96 A. 623 ], it was held that in an action for damages by fire through the negligence of the defendant, evidence that the plaintiff had received insurance money from fire insurance, which he had carried against loss by fire, is not proper for the consideration of the jury. In Barnes v. United Ry. Co., (1922), 140 Md. 14 [ 116 A. 855 ], it was held that the fact that the truck was insured did not disentitle the plaintiffs to maintain a suit for damage to the truck.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kremen v. Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund

3. ““The representation by Weston to plaintiff that because he was in the service he could recover only for pain and suffering was a false statement of the law. It is generally well settled that the fact that the plaintiff may receive compensation from a collateral source (or free medical care) is no defense to an action for damages against the person causing the injury. See Standard Oil Co. of California v. United States, 9 Cir., 153 F.2d 958 , 963, affirmed 332 U.S. 301 , 67 S.Ct. 1604 , 91 L.Ed. 2067 , and the cases therein cited; note, 22 A.L.R. 1558 ; note, 18 A.L.R. 678 -683; McCormick, Damages, 310 note 2, and 324 (1935); 15 American Jurisprudence, Damages, §§ 78, 200-201; Restatement, Torts § 920, Comment e. It is inconceivable that any member of the bar could have made a statement such as the one made by Weston without knowledge of its falsity or without acting with a reckless disregard for the truth.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rayfield v. Lawrence