Bethards v. Shivvers, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably Nottingdale Homeowners' Ass'n v. Darby (1987), First Bank (N.A.) — Billings v. Clark (1989)
4 federal appellate · 15 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 Harsha v. State Savings Bank · Meyer v. Nottger · Poulsen v. Russell · Briner v. Hyslop · Hassebroch v. Weaver Construction Company
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“directors.” The latter is a group consisting of Dan Glandon, Director of Ambulance Services; Bill Haloran, Director of Facility Services; and Jerlyn Bowers, Director of Patient Care Services. For clarity, the Court will refer either to the Board of Directors or the Directors Council, as appropriate. 3 . In this reply, Wright asserts that because Defendants filed a response to his statement of undisputed facts without including a statement of additional material facts, and because some of the statements of fact included in Defendants’ brief are not numbered and cited, they fail to comply with the Local Rules and should be stricken from the record. The same statements at issue are properly included within Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, so the Court includes these facts in its consideration of the pending motions. 4 . The Complaint lists 28 U.S.C. § 1983 , but there is no such code section. Given the nature of the case, it is assumed that Wright meant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . 5 . Both parties address the sufficiency of Wright's actual distress. While the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim has been disposed of by Wright’s failure to maintain the first element of the tort, the Court notes that there is similarly little evidence that Wright actually suffered actionable emotional distress. “The law intervenes only where the distress inflicted is so severe that no reasonable man could be expected to endure it.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“wrongful or illegal conduct committed or continued with a willful or reckless disregard of another's rights”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“the intentional commission of a wrongful act without just cause or excuse.”
2 later decisions 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.