256 Mich. App. 112 - Jenkins v. Patel’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “a statute analogous to the damages cap, the Legislature not only specifically addressed death, but identified death as one of the two injuries that results in the second-tier cap: "In an action for product liability, the total amount of damages for noneconomic loss shall not exceed $280,000.00, unless the defect in the product caused either the person's death or permanent loss of a vital bodily function, in which case the total amount of damages for noneconomic loss shall not exceed $500,000.00." [M.C.L. § 600.2946a(1).] Thus, while the Legislature was clearly aware that death is a possible injury in medical-malpractice claims just as in products-liability claims, it chose not to identify it as an injury subject to the damages cap. [ Jenkins, supra at 135-136, 662 N.W.2d 453 (Kelly, J., concurring).]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jenkins v. Patel

2. “"Statutes in pari materia are those which relate to the same person or thing, or the same class of persons or things, or which have a common purpose. It is the rule that in construction of a particular statute, or in the interpretation of its provisions, all statutes relating to the same subject, or having the same general purpose, should be read in connection with it, as together constituting one law, although enacted at different times, and containing no reference one to the other." [ State Treasurer v. Schuster, 456 Mich. 408, 417 , 572 N.W.2d 628 (1998), quoting Detroit v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., 374 Mich. 543, 558 , 132 N.W.2d 660 (1965) (citations omitted from Michigan Bell Tel Co ).]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Hendrick

3. “standing alone, the [wrongful death act] mandates recovery in any amount, limited only by the requirement that the amount be fair and equitable, for noneconomic losses, including those for loss of society and companionship. Without taking into consideration the damages cap ... the [act] clearly and unambiguously governs a medical-malpractice action involving death and the accompanying request for damages. This was clearly the Legislature's intent in enacting the [act]. Tort-reform legislation, which included the damages cap, did not result in any amendment of the [act]. [ Jenkins, supra at 119-120, 662 N.W.2d 453 .]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jenkins v. Patel