323 F. Supp. 2d 356 - Ruhlmann v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Smith v. Wade · Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc. · Wagenmann v. Adams · Kirsch v. Fleet Street, Ltd. · DLC Management Corp. v. Town of Hyde Park
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In reviewing a money judgment in an action in which an itemized verdict is required by rule forty-one hundred eleven of this chapter in which it is contended that the award is excessive or inadequate and that a new trial should have been granted unless a stipulation is entered to a different award, the appellate division shall determine that an award is excessive or inadequate if it deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“damages for emotional distress, mental anguish, and mental pain and suffering.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“such concepts [as] abstract and ill-suited to exacting calculation”
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.