253 N.J. Super. 607 - Statham v. Bush’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently June 2014
24 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 Busik v. Levine · Rempfer v. Deerfield Packing Corp. · Waterson v. General Motors Corp. · Ruff v. Weintraub · 216 N.J. Super. 588 - State v. Johnson
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“it could have directed the trial judge to fashion the jury interrogatories to break out past and future lost wages and ordered the application of prejudgment interest only to the former, suspending the running of interest on the latter as an "exceptional case" within the meaning of R. 4:42-11(b). This it did not do.... [ Id. at 617, 519 A.2d 1384 .]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“less than enthusiastic imprimatur in Ruff , where the applicability of the compensation rationale for prejudgment interest on future losses was characterized as `questionable'... given the presently articulated standards in Busik and Ruff , nothing about this case warrants suspension of the prejudgment interest rule.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“interest factor simply covers the value of the award for the period during which the defendants had the use of the moneys to which plaintiffs arc found to be entitled.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.