Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 317 Mass. 35 - Bartley v. Phillips

Bartley v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis

1944

Citation profile

254
cited by 254 later decisions
3
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 1 district · 248 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 254 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably Dagnello v. Long Island Rail Road (1961), Ayash v. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (2005)

5 federal appellate · 1 district · 248 state decisions

46019441950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Davis v. Boston Elevated Railway Co. · Peterson v. Hopson · Perry v. Hanover · Commonwealth v. Dascalakis · Simmons v. Fish

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

  1. “[A]n award of damages must stand unless ... to permit it to stand was an abuse of discretion on the part of the court below, amounting to an error of law.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “influenced by passion, partiality, prejudice or corruption.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “"In this court as an appellate tribunal an award of damages must stand unless to make it or to permit to to stand was an abuse of discretion on the part of the court below amounting to an error of law . . . (cases cited). An 'abuse of discretion’ consists of judicial action (that no conscientious judge, acting intelligently, could honestly have taken . . .’ (cases cited). The exercise of discretion, where discretion exists, is not subject to appelate review on a report from a District Court or on exceptions. Only where a question ordinarily discretionary is so clear that discretion is superseded by imperative legal duty can the result be revised . . . (cases cited). 'The field of discretion of the trial judge in these matters is very broad. Only in rare instances can it be ruled that there has been an abuse of discretion amounting to error of law . . .’ (cases cited)””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.