Marchetti v. Ramirez’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
73 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Nash v. Yap (1999), Lyons v. Nichols (2001)
73 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 Petriello v. Kalman · Childs v. Bainer · Sheiman v. Sheiman · Jerz v. Humphrey · Seymour v. Carcia
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is well established that `[i]n assessing damages in a tort action, a trier is not concerned with possibilities but with reasonable probabilities.' Sheiman v. Sheiman , 143 Conn. 222 , 225 , 121 A.2d 285 (1956). Consequently, as we stated in Jerz v. Humphrey , 160 Conn. 219 , 224 , 276 A.2d 884 (1971), `as to future medical expenses, the jury's determination must be based upon an estimate of reasonable probabilities, not possibilities.' Indeed, we expressly reaffirmed this principle in Seymour v. Carcia [ 221 Conn. 473 , 481 , 604 A.2d 1304 (1992)]. The obvious purpose of this requirement is to prevent the jury from awarding damages for future medical expenses based merely on speculation or conjecture.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Damages for the future consequences of an injury can never be forecast with certainty. With respect to awards for permanent injuries, actuarial tables of average life expectancy are commonly used to assist the trier in measuring the loss a plaintiff is likely to sustain from the future effects of an injury. Moreover, [t]he cost and frequency of past medical treatment . . . may be used as a `yardstick for future expenses' if it can be inferred that the plaintiff will continue to seek the same form of treatment in the future. 2 M. Minzer, J. Nates, C. Kimball, D. Axelrod R. Goldstein, Damages in Tort Actions § 9.55 [4], p. 9-80.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[A]s to future medical expenses, the jury's determination must be based upon an estimate of reasonable probabilities, not possibilities. . . . The obvious purpose of this requirement is to prevent the jury from awarding damages for future medical expenses based merely on speculation or conjecture.”
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.