Bender v. Popp’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 9 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““There was medical evidence in the record, as well as the plaintiff’s testimony, describing her subjective complaints'as to the exhaustion, pain, headaches and limitation of the motion of her neck, all of which presented facts from which a reasonable inference could have been drawn that her range of job opportunities and earning capacity would be affected by the injury. The defendant’s medical witness, Dr. Aronson, testified that the plaintiff had sustained permanent injuries as a result of the accident. The plaintiff’s medical witness, Dr. Horton, testified that the plaintiff had sustained a permanent injury which he stated ‘might’ be a five to ten percent permanent partial disability to her neck.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brooks v. Fairman · 32 Md. App. 299 - Johnson-Bey v. Reiger

2. ““This Court feels that the undisputed evidence of a permanent injury, even though close to minimal limits, renders the question of its effect on future earning capacity and job opportunities a matter within the purview of the jury. It presents a legitimate issue, the effect of which on the question of damages is fair game for both adversaries to argue to the trier of fact.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sugarman v. Liles · 32 Md. App. 299 - Johnson-Bey v. Reiger

3. ““The determination of the extent of impairment of earning power as a result of injury, although involving contingencies and matters of opinion, is an ordinary function of the triers of fact. In many cases evidence of salary, wages, or other income derived from personal services, earned by a plaintiff before and after sustaining an injury, is available for the purpose of comparison in proof of diminished earning power; but such a comparison is not essential to proof of diminished earning power, but all relevant facts must be considered. * * *.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brooks v. Fairman