Pence v. Fox’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district · 26 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When a parent is seriously injured, his or her child suffers a loss of eryoyment, care, guidance, love and protection, and is also deprived of a role model. Even courts that deny the parental consortium cause of action have acknowledged the reality of such emotional and psychological injury to the child, and the Alaska legislature has implicitly done so in allowing recovery by children for loss of consortium under Alaska’s wrongful death statute. Precluding minor children from maintaining a cause of action for loss of parental consortium arising from their parent’s injury would, in our view, be inconsistent with the legislature’s authorization of such recovexy when the parent dies, and with our prior holding in Fruit that a husband or wife may recover damages for loss of consortium when an injured spouse survives. The claim for loss of parental consortium presented in this case is not sufficiently distinguishable from either spousal consortium claims in injury cases or children’s consortium claims in death cases to warrant nonrecognition.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. North Pacific Insurance v. Stucky

2. “The contention that recognition of such a cause of action is a question for the legislature ignores the fact that the action for loss of consortium is a creation of the common law, and that the development of the common law is within the proper sphere of our authority and responsibility. [S]uch an argument ignores our responsibility to face a difficult legal question and accept judicial responsibility for a needed change in the common law .. . when the conditions and needs of the society have changed, judges must adapt the common law to those new conditions .... It must also be noted that our recognition of a new cause of action for the loss of parental consortium, as in the present case, in no way precludes the legislature from addressing the subject; it is still free to act. The legislature may ratify, limit or reject our holding.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mountain West Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. Brewer

3. “Section 40-2-101, MCA, does not “create” the cause of action. It merely defines the obligations which inhere in the marriage relationship and upon which the common law action is based. ... The statute merely codifies the policy behind the common law by recognizing that spouses contract with one another for mutual obligations.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. North Pacific Insurance v. Stucky