Renner v. Stafford’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 89 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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A trial court may enter summary judgment only if no material fact is genuinely in dispute. The summary judgment rules and the discovery rules, while not intended to substitute a new method for trial when an issue of fact exists, were adopted to permit trial courts to end litigation at an early stage provided it clearly appears that one of the parties is entitled to a judgment in the case as made out by the pleadings and the parties’ admissions. But a trial court, in considering a motion for summary judgment, must adopt those inferences from the facts that are most favorable to the nonmoving party, unless such inferences are strained, forced, or contrary to reason. Conversely, the trial court is not permitted to adopt inferences from the facts that are most favorable to the moving party.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rowland v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. · Tyger Construction Co. v. Commonwealth

2. “Here, given the circumstance that the medical evidence supporting the plaintiff’s theory has not been developed fully, the record is incomplete on that question, and the trial court prematurely ruled on the issue. Manifestly, there are material facts genuinely in dispute. The plaintiff is entitled to prove, if she can, that she sustained no “injury,” no “positive, physical, or mental hurt,” in the language of Locke, 221 Va. at 957, 275 S.E.2d at 904, until January 1989.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Isle v. Martin

3. “[T]he crucial question in cases like this, when the date of the wrongful act possibly does not coincide with the date of the resulting harm to the plaintiff, is: When was the plaintiff hurt? The answer to this question must be found mainly in the medical evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Murtha v. Cahalan