Phillips v. Chesson’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 71 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably 138 N.C. App. 19 - Poor v. Hill (2000), Lasercomb America, Inc. v. Reynolds (1990)
5 federal appellate · 71 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Ryder v. Town of Lexington · Ridley v. Seaboard & Roanoke Railroad · Broadhurst v. . Blythe Brothers Co. · West Construction Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line Railway Co. · Webb v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co.
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he objective of any proceeding to rectify a wrongful injury resulting in loss is to restore the victim to his original condition, to give back to him that which was lost as far as it may be done by compensation in money.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“reasonable costs of replacement or repair”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The impermanent nature of the condition from which the intermittent or recurrent damage arises is recognized in the constitution of the case, since the plaintiff has concomitantly with his prayer for damages invoked injunctive relief for its abatement. The cause of the recurring damage, then, is one which may be removed by the voluntary action of the defendant, or abated by court action, if that should be adjudged appropriate. Plaintiffs remedy in a proceeding of this sort, between private parties, is by successive suits brought from time to time against the author of the nuisance as long as the noxious condition is maintained, in which he may recover past damages down to the time of the trial . . . not including subjects of prior adjudication. In this way it has been said, . . . the defendant’s willingness to abate or remove the cause of damage may be stimulated when repeatedly mulcted in damages by reason of its continued maintenance. In contrast, permanent damages, as the term is used in the law, are given in one award of entire damages on the theory that all damage flows from the original injury, recognized as permanent in character; and such award includes compensation for all damage, however intermittent, or recurring, past, present and prospective, naturally flowing from and proximately caused by the original injury. The great weight of authority where the point has been squarely presented sine nubibus clearly rejects the diminution of market value as neither accurate,”
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.