232 F. Supp. 2d 192 - Meyers v. Epstein’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney Inc. · Schloendorff v. Society of the New York Hospital
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.
“it is unclear how the Meyers were damaged by the surgery given that there is no evidence suggesting that it was medically unnecessary or improperly performed. Nonetheless, nominal damages are available in a battery case, see, e.g., Brooker v. State, 206 A.D.2d 712 , 614 N.Y.S.2d 640 (3d Dep’t 1994), and there may be some damages that could be shown from the plaintiffs’ discovery, after the fact, that the operation was performed by a doctor different from the one to whom consent was given. See Perna [v. Pirozzi], 92 N.J. [446,] 461, 457 A.2d 431 [ (1983) ] (permitting damages for mental anguish resulting from such belated knowledge).”
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.