286 N.J. Super. 477 - Loftus-Smith v. Henry’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently November 2015 · most notably Zabilowicz v. Kelsey (2009), 358 N.J. Super. 555 - Government Emp. Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2003)
28 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 Brill v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America · Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Insurance Co. of America · Oswin v. Shaw · Roig v. Kelsey · 268 N.J. Super. 568 - Polk v. Daconceicao
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“as a result of bodily injury, arising out of the ... operation... or use of”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We are mindful that from the inception of the no-fault statutory scheme, the Legislature intended to eliminate minor personal-injury-automobile-negligence cases from the court system . . . and permitting a person whose injuries do not satisfy the verbal threshold to recover lost income, at least to the extent that the income loss is otherwise uncompensated, will cause many claims for lost income in minor automobile accident cases. However, the Legislature clearly provided for recovery of such "uncompensated economic loss." [ Loftus-Smith v. Henry, 286 N.J.Super. 477, 489 , 669 A. 2d 852 (App.Div.1996).]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“since plaintiff sustained similar injuries in a prior accident for which she had received treatments until approximately two months before [the subject accident], she was required [under Polk ] to submit competent proofs comparing the two accidents.”
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.